Items of interest...
Parking garage moving forward.
Lovero wants to effectively do away with the crime free housing ordinance by making it voluntary (and apply it to single family homes). Why in the world would you want to make it easier for criminals to live here???
The Skryd Grievance returns. How much city money can one Alderman waste while trying to get their husband promoted?
Chicago is raising water rates. Ours will go up 10%.
Most interesting item is J-9. It would appear the US Department of Justice looked at the 2004/2005 (Shaugnessy/DCOBRDO Administration) and determined that "Impermissable Expenditures" were made to the tune of over three quarters of a million dollars ($762,793). Thank you Mr. Marzullo and city council. This is a big item as the city likely does not have reserves to meet this re-imbursement.
The Centennial made $4500+.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on November 11, 2008, 12:08:09 PM
Lovero wants to effectively do away with the crime free housing ordinance by making it voluntary (and apply it to single family homes). Why in the world would you want to make it easier for criminals to live here???
He says it's because "landlords are not solidly behind this," which is rather ignorant if you ask me; it's not their decision.
I do, however, like the idea of adding all (including single family rentals) to the mix if resources are made available by this.
(http://www.berwyntalk.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6795.0;attach=5817;image)
The problem we have, unfortunately, is tracing a lot of problems to certain properties. I think a lot of the crime by those from Cicero, Austin, et al is due to them hanging around ne'er-do-wells who rent here.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on November 11, 2008, 12:08:09 PM
Most interesting item is J-9. It would appear the US Department of Justice looked at the 2004/2005 (Shaugnessy/DCOBRDO Administration) and determined that "Impermissable Expenditures" were made to the tune of over three quarters of a million dollars ($762,793). Thank you Mr. Marzullo and city council. This is a big item as the city likely does not have reserves to meet this re-imbursement.
Here is the link to item J-9 detailed on p170 of the packet. This in in your best interest as a resident and taxpayer to read the DOJ parameters of the program, it is very clear that the expenditures were not used in the proper way. Pay up Berwyn.
http://www.berwyn-il.gov/pdf/MtgAgendas/2008/20081111-CouAgenda-Full-Packet.pdf
"He says it's because "landlords are not solidly behind this," which is rather ignorant if you ask me; it's not their decision.
I do, however, like the idea of adding all (including single family rentals) to the mix if resources are made available by this."
My sentiments exactly, it's not the landlords' decision.
Most people are not going to want to be regulated, especially if their business model is predicated upon renting to people the community (and the legal system) may view as troublemakers.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on November 11, 2008, 12:08:09 PM
Items of interest...
Most interesting item is J-9. It would appear the US Department of Justice looked at the 2004/2005 (Shaugnessy/DCOBRDO Administration) and determined that "Impermissable Expenditures" were made to the tune of over three quarters of a million dollars ($762,793). Thank you Mr. Marzullo and city council. This is a big item as the city likely does not have reserves to meet this re-imbursement.
"2 million in the bank building is worth more than any million in a politician's pocket."
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on November 11, 2008, 02:15:49 PM
Most people are not going to want to be regulated, especially if their business model is predicated upon renting to people the community (and the legal system) may view as troublemakers.
Belongs in the BTF "Deathless Quotations" listing.
Quote"2 million in the bank building is worth more than any million in a politician's pocket."
Continues to make no sense.
I would rather have 2 million spent on the bank building preservation than having any amount of money disappearing into a politician's pocket. If it's specifics and names that you want, I don't have those. It was a general statement. What doesn't make sense to me is your initial reaction to my statement.
Quote from: Terri on November 11, 2008, 02:03:06 PM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on November 11, 2008, 12:08:09 PM
Most interesting item is J-9. It would appear the US Department of Justice looked at the 2004/2005 (Shaugnessy/DCOBRDO Administration) and determined that "Impermissable Expenditures" were made to the tune of over three quarters of a million dollars ($762,793). Thank you Mr. Marzullo and city council. This is a big item as the city likely does not have reserves to meet this re-imbursement.
Here is the link to item J-9 detailed on p170 of the packet. This in in your best interest as a resident and taxpayer to read the DOJ parameters of the program, it is very clear that the expenditures were not used in the proper way. Pay up Berwyn.
http://www.berwyn-il.gov/pdf/MtgAgendas/2008/20081111-CouAgenda-Full-Packet.pdf
Oh Bear ....................... where are you ???????
Explanation, please.
:D ;D :D
Just that it makes no sense. The bank building and politicians stealing have nothing to do with each other. If Berwyn had 2 million in the bank, then I might be able to see spending some small part of it on helping someone preserve the bank building. But since the city is in a deficit, to continue to pour money down a rat hole (literally) makes no sense. How you relate politicians stealing with preserving the bank or anything else......beyond me.
Can you tell me why the City is in a deficit? Have we always been in a deficit? If not, how long have we been in a deficit? Why is the bank building a rat hole? How long has it been a rat hole?
We've lived here 10 years it's been a rat hole the whole time. Why? I suppose because it's abandoned and rats live in abandoned buildings. Did you take the tour a couple of years ago? They didn't even clean the dead rats out before they let people through the building.
I don't know why the city is in a deficit, overspending, the economy, politicians afraid to raise taxes....feel free to add to the list.
Quote from: Bonster on November 11, 2008, 01:29:51 PM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on November 11, 2008, 12:08:09 PM
Lovero wants to effectively do away with the crime free housing ordinance by making it voluntary (and apply it to single family homes). Why in the world would you want to make it easier for criminals to live here???
He says it's because "landlords are not solidly behind this," which is rather ignorant if you ask me; it's not their decision.
I do, however, like the idea of adding all (including single family rentals) to the mix if resources are made available by this.
(http://www.berwyntalk.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6795.0;attach=5817;image)
The problem we have, unfortunately, is tracing a lot of problems to certain properties. I think a lot of the crime by those from Cicero, Austin, et al is due to them hanging around ne'er-do-wells who rent here.
I may support that if it is two citations any 12 months, not six months AND
All other properties owned by that landlord would also fall under the ordinance AND
what happens after a tenant leaves? When a new tenant comes in, all proporties of that landlord are still under the ordinance.
If no visits/citations occur of 24 months, then the properties no longer fall under the ordinance.
This might work because it will target scumlords. The landlords would try as much as possible not to fall under the burdensom ordinance, and therefore not rent to problem tenants to start with. However, it might be a nightmare to enforce, how are you going to find out all the properties owned by the scumlords?
It is an interesting proposal, in that it is doomed to fail as Lovero proposes. No way the city has enough people to do the inspections. It would be an ordinance without any teeth.
Here's the thing, I could care less whose idea the Crime Free Housing was. I do know the program has been highly successful in other communities for deterring and reducing crime. Compromise, do whatever it takes, just get it done. The nonsense about hiring an inspector looks like a stall tactic IMO, the landlord fees will pay for the inspector. Bite the bullet and get the program rolling.
Here are some notes from tonight's city council meeting:
1. Mainstreet program - Alderman Erickson read a long statement (the reading lasted about 10 minutes) about Berwyn's Main Street program, during which he accused Alderman Skryd of poor management of the program; driving away the former director of Main Street; hiring the current director as a political favor even though the current director does not meet the experience criteria set by the board of directors; hiring the current director by "annointing him" rather than following the by-laws; driving away board members who were involved in Main Street; and alleging that Alderman Skryd suggested that the organization just say it had been "designated" by the state of Illinois when it had not. Erickson then asked for all documentation of Main Street, including its by-laws and suggested that all material be forwarded on to the States Attorney's office.
Alderman Chapman made a motion to ignore Erickson's agenda item because it had already been voted on at the October 14 city council meeting. Erickson responded that at the October 14 city council meeting Alderman Skryd was not present and that the city council had agreed that Alderman Skryd should answer Alderman Erickson's questions. The motion to ignore Alderman Erickson's agenda item because it had already been brought up at the October 14 city council meeting passed, with Lovero, Chapman and Skryd voting to ignore the agenda item; Aldermen Weiner and (I think) Day voting Present; Alderman Phelan voting Nay, saying he wanted to hear what Erickson had to say. Erickson read his communication as part of his vote, since it was obvious the motion to ignore the communication was going to pass.
2. Electoral Board lawyers - The city clerk put an item on the agenda to re-hire the law firm used to be headed by Matt Delort and which had been the lawyer for the city electoral board for over a decade. The Mayor then stated he was using "Rule 28" to take it off the agenda. Apparently, the mayor wants to replace the Delort law firm with the Odelson law firm, which is the city's lawyers.
Alderman Lovero then stated he was making a motion to deny the city clerk's request and that there was no reason for the mayor to use Rule 28. The mayor stated he still wanted to use Rule 28 because he did not want it voted on. Alderman Lovero stated that he had had a "discussion" with Burt Odelson and decided that it was OK for the city to use the Odelson law firm as the law firm for the electoral board as well. Alderman Ramos objected, saying that the reason the city had always used an independent law firm for the electoral board was to avoid conflict of interest, since the city's law firm would have an interest in its recommendations to the electoral board.
Eventualy, the mayor "withdrew" his use of Rule 28 and the motion by Lovero to deny the city clerk's request to use the Delort law firm as the electoral board's attorney passed by a vote of 7 to 1 with the only Nay vote being Alderman Ramos.
I think Alderman Ramos was correct on this one. I would prefer that the electoral board have an independent law firm who is an expert of election law and is not the city's law firm. I also think it is a conflict of interest.
3. Feds want Berwyn to give back $750K - The federal government has audited the use of federal forfuture money from drug traffickers and have found that the city of Berwyn violated the use of those funds in 2004 and 2005. The expenditures were not to exceed 15% of the total amount; the expenditures were not to include payment of salaries and the money was supposed to be spent on drug prevention programs. In 2004 and 2005, the money was spent on senior programs and computers for the schools and, as Chief Kushner stated in his presentation, apparently the federal goverment does not think Berwyn has a drug problem amongst its seniors.
There was an interesting exchange between Alderman Lovero and Chief Kushner. Alderman Lovero asked how the federal goverment found out about how the money was used. Chief Kushner replied that the former Finance Director Stephanie sent the audit information to the federal government and that was how they found out. To which Alderman Lovero replied that the city should have made sure the audit information sent to the federal government was seen to be in compliance before the audit information was sent.
Alderman Lovero claimed that the agenda item was politically motivated. Alderman Chapman asked why it was even on the agenda, since it had no relevance to the city council ??? The Mayor replied that he thought it was important for the city council to know that the federal government was asking for $750,000. Alderman Chapman stated that the city council had no control over how the police department spent the drug money and implied it was not the city council's responsibility to get involved?
4. Higher taxes for water and garbage - Waste Management is raising the rates to pick up garbage by 5% and the city of Chicago is raising its rate on the city of Berwyn to use Lake Michigan water by 8% so the city wants to pass these increases on to the tax payers. The 5% Waste Management increase was passed. The water rate increase was deferred because there was some confusion over whether the rate increase was 8% or 10%.
5. Police union statement - In the open forum, the police union read a statement complaining about the city of Berwyn. First, the union leader claimed that the city had cut some jobs and made other cutbacks and stated that the city's financial crisis was an allegation by the mayor. The statement also said that the city was playing politics with the promotions of some police officers because of their political affiliations. The statement also took Alderman Erickson to task for putting on the city council agenda the grievance filed by a police officer, saying that the union contract required that all grievances be kept private.
6. Emannuel Bible Church construction - The construction at Emmanuel Bible Church has apparently violated the American's for Disability Act. The construction company hired by Emmanuel Bible Church constructed parking that was contrary to what the city approved. The church admitted that the construction company went "off-plan". Alderman Ramos made a motion to allow the construction to remain as is. The mayor pointed out that the city could not do that, since ADA was federal law and the city could not willfully ignore federal law.
Eventually, it was decided that the church would sit down with the building department to discuss 2 other alternatives that would comply with ADA and, if one of those alternatives was acceptable, the church would un-do whatever it was they did that violated the ADA.
7. $400K for Buona Beef - The city voted to provide $400,000 to Buona Beef out of the Roosevelt Road TIF fund. Several aldermen were concerned because the $400K represented a large chunk taken out of the TIF fund (it sounded like more than half) and they were worried that money would not be available for the Roosevelt Streetscape project. Alderman Phelan also raised the point that the $400K represented more than 50% of the constructions costs and that TIF funds provided should not be more than 50% of the construction costs. The BDC person stated that they expected enough property taxes to be collected this year to replenish the TIF fund for the Roosevelt Streetscape project. The council passed the motion to provide $400K to Buona Beef for construction.
The vote was 7 to 1 approving with Alderman Erickson voting Nay (which is an interesting vote, since this is his ward.)
8. Parking garage - The city council voted to spend $6.8 million dollars to build a parking garage in the depot district. The mayor stated that this was something he had been working on since the time when he was alderman of the 1st ward.
9. Salerno's - The city council referred to legal a request by Salerno's to change its liquor license to allow more people in the restaurant. Alderman Chapman stated that by removing tables and chairs and turning the restaurant into a dance club, Salerno's was violating the spirit of the restaurant liquor license law because, by removing tables and chairs, it was no longer acting as a restaurant and that Salerno's should be seeking an entertainment license, not an increased capacity on their liquor license. The agenda item was sent to legal.
10. Methadone clinic referendum - Alderman Chapman made a motion to require that the city attorney provide a written statement about why an ordinance was not presented to the city council to put a referendum on the ballot that would allow the zoning of certain types of medical facilities. The city attorney responded that an ordinance was not required to put a referendum on the ballot and that he had provided the text of the referendum to the city clerk, which the legal department had already reviewed and approved. The city attorney stated that he had expected the city clerk to present the referendum to the city council for a vote.
Alderman Chapman replied that the motion clearly stated that the referendum was referred to the legal department, not to the city clerk. Alderman Weiner asked why Alderman Chapman herself did not follow up at the August city council meetings and did not bring up the referendum herself if she had noticed that the referendum was not on the agenda to be voted on. Alderman Weiner also accused Alderman Chapman of bringing up the issue only because she read about it on Berwyn Talk Forum, to which Alderman Chapman replied that she heard about it from constituents.
Alderman Erickson amended the motion to ask the city attorney to create a resolution for the city council to put the referedum on the April ballot. The motion to request a written explanation from the legal department and the amendment to request the legal department present the referendum to the city council to put on the April ballot both passed 8 to 0.
11. Demolition of house near 16th street fire station - The city council approved the demolition of a house near the 16th street fire station. Alderman Chapman complained that the city paid too much for the property and that the appraisers used by the city had appraised the house at too high of a cost. One of the city attorneys angrily responded to Alderman Chapman's statement, saying that the hiring of the appraiser was above board and that the price paid of the house was similar to the prices of nearby houses.
12. Other news - The bank buldings on Cermak and Oak Park and on Windsor and Oak Park were designated as local historical landmarks; the council approved extending the city's credit line by $2 million dollars so it can pay its bills; the Berwyn Centenniel made a profit of a few thousand dollars; the multi-housing inspection ordinance was referred to committee;.
Finally, there was a very nice Veteran's Day commeration before the council meeting started, with Alderman Day playing Taps on his bugle and members of audience who had served in the military saluting. Bob Soucek asked in open forum why there was no commeration plaque honoring the Berwyn residents who had died in war. Frank Amaro replied that the park district was going to create a plaque in Proksa Park but they were having a hard time collecting the names. To which Bob Soucek replied that he knew some who had all the names.
Alderman Weiner also accused Alderman Chapman of bringing up the issue only because she read about it on Berwyn Talk Forum, to which Alderman Chapman replied that she heard about it from constituents.
...and the constituents read about it on Berwyn Talk Forum, and...
Chief Kushner replied that the former Finance Director Stephanie sent the audit information to the federal government and that was how they found out. To which Alderman Lovero replied that the city should have made sure the audit information sent to the federal government was seen to be in compliance before the audit information was sent.
Alderman Lovero claimed that the agenda item was politically motivated. Alderman Chapman asked why it was even on the agenda, since it had no relevance to the city council The Mayor replied that he thought it was important for the city council to know that the federal government was asking for $750,000. Alderman Chapman stated that the city council had no control over how the police department spent the drug money and implied it was not the city council's responsibility to get involved?
Oh! A conflict of interest within the DCoB? and in public!
Lovero says this should have gone thru the CITY first (to massage the numbers his party was responsible for, perhaps??).
Yet... Chapman says there is no reason for this to go through city council. I understand "City" and "City Council" can be two different things, but they're treading murky waters here.
See... It's a damn GOOD thing this went thru City Council. How the hell else would we have found out about it?
"Politically motivated?"
Lovero is exposing his (party's) hand. IF he's so cock sure the "D"CoB is "different" than the BRDO, he should have nothing at all to worry about.
He easily could have abandoned the "Berwyn Democratic" tag, but he's opted to rely on it...good luck with that, Bob.
It was a former director who she claimed she "anointed", not the current. The current has not been to training, which is where the incident took place. Erickson's statement was factually correct for the most part. Nothing major that he got wrong.
Chapman seemed to insinuate that the appraisal for that house to be torn down was incorrect. I'm guessing she voted for it when it was initially approved.
What would the "conflict" be with the city firm being the same as the election firm? I'm not clear on that.
Lovero and Chapman were in full CYA mode regarding the Fed money. These expenditures took place during the time Marzullo was Chief. Chief Kushner said in all his years of handling forfeiture money (he was responsible for it in CPD), he'd never received a letter such as this one. Shouldn't the police chief (which I'm guessing Lovero voted to approve) have made sure the funds were used correctly, not the finance director? Also, if these audits were submitted years ago, that would have been under the Shaugnessy (DCOBRDO) administration. Hard to pin that one on OC. Chapman went on about not being able to approve expenditures from the forfeiture funds...OC and Chief Kushner pointed out that federal regulations governed in this case, not local ordinances.
I didn't recall the Police rep saying they had cut jobs.
Seems like a lot of money for Buona. They are getting 54% rather than 50%. Hopefully the parking situation can be addressed during the remodel.
The whole church thing seemed odd, as it was really their own behavior that got them into trouble.
The Salerno's license item is interesting. I've wondered the same thing as Chapman. Namely, that if you have a liquor license for a restaurant, how do you shut down the kitchen and quit acting as a restaurant, yet maintain the license? Salerno's isn't the only place in town doing this.
Correction:
The demolition of the house behind the 16th Street fire station was NOT approved: it was refereed to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and recommendation per the recently passed demolition ordinance.
Also, I think it would be only fair to state that Ald. Chapman has been asking for audits and reports of the spending going through the drug forfeiture funds for the at least the past 8 years. She was always told it was none of her business, though I cannot recall her being told this from the current administration.
Quote from: Bonster on November 12, 2008, 08:33:13 AM
Chief Kushner replied that the former Finance Director Stephanie sent the audit information to the federal government and that was how they found out. To which Alderman Lovero replied that the city should have made sure the audit information sent to the federal government was seen to be in compliance before the audit information was sent.
Alderman Lovero claimed that the agenda item was politically motivated. Alderman Chapman asked why it was even on the agenda, since it had no relevance to the city council The Mayor replied that he thought it was important for the city council to know that the federal government was asking for $750,000. Alderman Chapman stated that the city council had no control over how the police department spent the drug money and implied it was not the city council's responsibility to get involved?
Oh! A conflict of interest within the DCoB? and in public!
Lovero says this should have gone thru the CITY first (to massage the numbers his party was responsible for, perhaps??).
Yet... Chapman says there is no reason for this to go through city council. I understand "City" and "City Council" can be two different things, but they're treading murky waters here.
See... It's a damn GOOD thing this went thru City Council. How the hell else would we have found out about it?
"Politically motivated?"
Lovero is exposing his (party's) hand. IF he's so cock sure the "D"CoB is "different" than the BRDO, he should have nothing at all to worry about.
He easily could have abandoned the "Berwyn Democratic" tag, but he's opted to rely on it...good luck with that, Bob.
This seems to indicate to me that the audits were not done in a timely manner. Why would Stephanie (hired in 2006 or 2007) be submitting reports for 2004? Why the delay in the Shaugnessy administration? Oh, that's right, they didn't submit the other audits to the state on time either.
Quote from: EC on November 12, 2008, 08:49:43 AM
Correction:
The demolition of the house behind the 16th Street fire station was NOT approved: it was refereed to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and recommendation per the recently passed demolition ordinance.
Also, I think it would be only fair to state that Ald. Chapman has been asking for audits and reports of the spending going through the drug forfeiture funds for the at least the past 8 years. She was always told it was none of her business, though I cannot recall her being told this from the current administration.
Even if the house is deemed "historic", council can still vote to ignore their recommendation, correct?
LOL!
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on November 12, 2008, 08:50:36 AM
Quote from: Bonster on November 12, 2008, 08:33:13 AM
Chief Kushner replied that the former Finance Director Stephanie sent the audit information to the federal government and that was how they found out. To which Alderman Lovero replied that the city should have made sure the audit information sent to the federal government was seen to be in compliance before the audit information was sent.
Alderman Lovero claimed that the agenda item was politically motivated. Alderman Chapman asked why it was even on the agenda, since it had no relevance to the city council The Mayor replied that he thought it was important for the city council to know that the federal government was asking for $750,000. Alderman Chapman stated that the city council had no control over how the police department spent the drug money and implied it was not the city council's responsibility to get involved?
Oh! A conflict of interest within the DCoB? and in public!
Lovero says this should have gone thru the CITY first (to massage the numbers his party was responsible for, perhaps??).
Yet... Chapman says there is no reason for this to go through city council. I understand "City" and "City Council" can be two different things, but they're treading murky waters here.
See... It's a damn GOOD thing this went thru City Council. How the hell else would we have found out about it?
"Politically motivated?"
Lovero is exposing his (party's) hand. IF he's so cock sure the "D"CoB is "different" than the BRDO, he should have nothing at all to worry about.
He easily could have abandoned the "Berwyn Democratic" tag, but he's opted to rely on it...good luck with that, Bob.
This seems to indicate to me that the audits were not done in a timely manner. Why would Stephanie (hired in 2006 or 2007) be submitting reports for 2004? Why the delay in the Shaugnessy administration? Oh, that's right, they didn't submit the other audits to the state on time either.
It was an ethical and responsible decision for Stephanie to report the audit and to bring the DOJ findings to Council. The Federal Government would find the misused funds at some point anyway. Was there discussion on how to remedy the three quarter of a million dollars owed to the federal government?
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on November 12, 2008, 08:50:36 AM
Quote from: Bonster on November 12, 2008, 08:33:13 AM
Chief Kushner replied that the former Finance Director Stephanie sent the audit information to the federal government and that was how they found out. To which Alderman Lovero replied that the city should have made sure the audit information sent to the federal government was seen to be in compliance before the audit information was sent.
Alderman Lovero claimed that the agenda item was politically motivated. Alderman Chapman asked why it was even on the agenda, since it had no relevance to the city council The Mayor replied that he thought it was important for the city council to know that the federal government was asking for $750,000. Alderman Chapman stated that the city council had no control over how the police department spent the drug money and implied it was not the city council's responsibility to get involved?
Oh! A conflict of interest within the DCoB? and in public!
Lovero says this should have gone thru the CITY first (to massage the numbers his party was responsible for, perhaps??).
Yet... Chapman says there is no reason for this to go through city council. I understand "City" and "City Council" can be two different things, but they're treading murky waters here.
See... It's a damn GOOD thing this went thru City Council. How the hell else would we have found out about it?
"Politically motivated?"
Lovero is exposing his (party's) hand. IF he's so cock sure the "D"CoB is "different" than the BRDO, he should have nothing at all to worry about.
He easily could have abandoned the "Berwyn Democratic" tag, but he's opted to rely on it...good luck with that, Bob.
This seems to indicate to me that the audits were not done in a timely manner. Why would Stephanie (hired in 2006 or 2007) be submitting reports for 2004? Why the delay in the Shaugnessy administration? Oh, that's right, they didn't submit the other audits to the state on time either.
In my experience with Federal Grants, the audits can be 1-2 years after the grant initial grant cycle. I've been audited for grants that were 2 and some years old. I still can't believe that they didn't follow the grant's requirements.
Quote from: dukesdad on November 11, 2008, 03:33:48 PM
We've lived here 10 years it's been a rat hole the whole time. Why? I suppose because it's abandoned and rats live in abandoned buildings. Did you take the tour a couple of years ago? They didn't even clean the dead rats out before they let people through the building.
I don't know why the city is in a deficit, overspending, the economy, politicians afraid to raise taxes....feel free to add to the list.
I don't think the bank building has been a "rat hole" the entire time you've lived here, I think that it has gradually gotten worse. I believe there is still hope. Preservation is expensive but sometimes you have to suck it up. There are worthwhile causes and this is one of them. There have been so many issues with respect to the bank building one that specifically comes to mind is the 2003 Stillo arrest for trying to pass a bribe from the developer, Josefik, to try to win City Council votes. All work with respect to the bank building came to a standstill because of this, I believe. This is what I mean, so much time and money has been spent on politicans' wrongdoings that should have been spent on the preservation of the bank building.
As far as why we are in a deficit, well I think the rest of this thread re audits is one answer.
Times are tough, and I heard (gossip, I'll admit--but makes sense) that Arnie is having
a very hard time financially with running just a restaurant, therefore the "club" after hours
has kept him afloat. More profits these days in clubbing then eating I guess.
Salernos at one time was a nice family restaurant in a nice family neighborhood.
The rodent problem was the start of the demise of Salerno's, the place went down hill after that.
Ana:
I beg to differ, but it has been a rat hole at least that long, if not longer. The Stillo indictment did not stop work, there was no work to stop. It has sat because it's not an economically viable project, never was never will be, politicians wrongdoing or not...IMHO. Now the wheels are in motion to turn the Marik Funeral Home into the next Cermak Road white elephant. Historic preservation is a noble cause, just bring a plan and dollars to the party.
Quote from: dukesdad on November 12, 2008, 11:52:08 AM
Ana:
I beg to differ, but it has been a rat hole at least that long, if not longer. The Stillo indictment did not stop work, there was no work to stop. It has sat because it's not an economically viable project, never was never will be, politicians wrongdoing or not...IMHO. Now the wheels are in motion to turn the Marik Funeral Home into the next Cermak Road white elephant. Historic preservation is a noble cause, just bring a plan and dollars to the party.
Given that the community has expressed a desire for historic preservation, why isn't the vaunted BDC paying attention to the residents wishes? THEY should be bringing in business that suit the community, not working to tear down the history of the community to suit their ends.
I guess the better question is "Who does the BDC work for?" The taxpayers? Or the business owners that make up their membership (and a small minority of residents who aren't business owners)?
Isn't the BDC independent of the City? They do not run on taxpayer money (do they?) so their interests are those of the members (business owners, some of whom do not live in Berwyn) of the BDC. Correct?
Brian, the police union rep definitely made some type of statement about 15% layoffs and cut backs in the police department. I remember it and wrote it down because I was surprised by the statement. I didn't think there had been any layoffs in the police department.
As for the electoral board, the whole electoral board is a conflict of interest, IMHO. The members of the electoral board are Michael O'Connor, Robert Lovero and Thomas Pavlik.
These are the people who rule on election challenges for the mayor's race and aldermanic races. Talk about a conflict of interest.
I think Jim Ramos was saying that the city's law firm (in this case Odelson) would have their livelihood depend on their benefactors getting re-elected; therefore, they could not be trusted to give an objective opinion where as an independent law firm would be more trusted to give an objective opinion because they would have no stake in a politician getting on the ballot.
Ted
QuoteIsn't the BDC independent of the City? They do not run on taxpayer money (do they?) so their interests are those of the members (business owners, some of whom do not live in Berwyn) of the BDC. Correct?
A large part of the BDC budget comes from the city. Anyone know what %age?
Quote from: dukesdad on November 12, 2008, 01:08:19 PM
QuoteIsn't the BDC independent of the City? They do not run on taxpayer money (do they?) so their interests are those of the members (business owners, some of whom do not live in Berwyn) of the BDC. Correct?
A large part of the BDC budget comes from the city. Anyone know what %age?
The BDC gets roughly 1.2 million from the TIF's/City. Membership dues are approximately $30,000. Nice leverage.
Quote from: Ted on November 12, 2008, 12:59:10 PM
Brian, the police union rep definitely made some type of statement about 15% layoffs and cut backs in the police department. I remember it and wrote it down because I was surprised by the statement. I didn't think there had been any layoffs in the police department.
As for the electoral board, the whole electoral board is a conflict of interest, IMHO. The members of the electoral board are Michael O'Connor, Robert Lovero and Thomas Pavlik.
These are the people who rule on election challenges for the mayor's race and aldermanic races. Talk about a conflict of interest.
I think Jim Ramos was saying that the city's law firm (in this case Odelson) would have their livelihood depend on their benefactors getting re-elected; therefore, they could not be trusted to give an objective opinion where as an independent law firm would be more trusted to give an objective opinion because they would have no stake in a politician getting on the ballot.
Ted
I'd never heard of the electoral board before. Where did you find this info, and does it describe their duties?
And that does seem to be a huge conflict of interest.
Quote from: dukesdad on November 12, 2008, 11:52:08 AM
Ana:
I beg to differ, but it has been a rat hole at least that long, if not longer. The Stillo indictment did not stop work, there was no work to stop. It has sat because it's not an economically viable project, never was never will be, politicians wrongdoing or not...IMHO. Now the wheels are in motion to turn the Marik Funeral Home into the next Cermak Road white elephant. Historic preservation is a noble cause, just bring a plan and dollars to the party.
Dukesdad is right on the money. If that bank needs 2 to 3 million in work it will remain an eyesoar for over a decade longer in these economic times. Especially when the city has no money to improve it. And yes, the funeral home will be destined to the same fate. The fastest,and cheapest way to revitalize Cermak is to take the wrecking ball to both of them. Once Cermak and Oak Park is developed watch how fast the rest of Cermak Road falls into place. There is nothing historic about bank buildings and funeral homes. Especially when they hold back economic development in a city that is starving for it.
Quote from: mustang54 on November 12, 2008, 02:24:37 PM
Quote from: dukesdad on November 12, 2008, 11:52:08 AM
Ana:
I beg to differ, but it has been a rat hole at least that long, if not longer. The Stillo indictment did not stop work, there was no work to stop. It has sat because it's not an economically viable project, never was never will be, politicians wrongdoing or not...IMHO. Now the wheels are in motion to turn the Marik Funeral Home into the next Cermak Road white elephant. Historic preservation is a noble cause, just bring a plan and dollars to the party.
Dukesdad is right on the money. If that bank needs 2 to 3 million in work it will remain an eyesoar for over a decade longer in these economic times. Especially when the city has no money to improve it. And yes, the funeral home will be destined to the same fate. The fastest,and cheapest way to revitalize Cermak is to take the wrecking ball to both of them. Once Cermak and Oak Park is developed watch how fast the rest of Cermak Road falls into place. There is nothing historic about bank buildings and funeral homes. Especially when they hold back economic development in a city that is starving for it.
If there is nothing historic about the bank, why is it listed on the National Register of Historic Places???
Details, details, details Beian .....
Why preserve a historic bank building when "economic developent" will yield a strip mall with a Radio Shack, BoRics, and Taco Bell?
QuoteIf there is nothing historic about the bank, why is it listed on the National Register of Historic Places???
Excellent question.
Quote from: SILK on November 12, 2008, 02:45:16 PM
Details, details, details Beian .....
Why preserve a historic bank building when "economic developent" will yield a strip mall with a Radio Shack, BoRics, and Taco Bell?
A nail salon, and a taqueria.
Quote from: Nazerac on November 12, 2008, 02:49:19 PM
Quote from: SILK on November 12, 2008, 02:45:16 PM
Details, details, details Beian .....
Why preserve a historic bank building when "economic developent" will yield a strip mall with a Radio Shack, BoRics, and Taco Bell?
A nail salon, and a taqueria.
don't forget a currency exchange, a laundromat and a
ropa para putas shop.
Are we following this process for the bank?
http://www.state.il.us/hpa/ps/taxcredits.htm (http://www.state.il.us/hpa/ps/taxcredits.htm)
And according to some, a Starbucks and a Potbelly. Regardless what businesses went in there, they would have contributed property and sales taxes for the last 10 years. Plus, we wouldn't have a rotting pile of crap sitting on one of the most prominent corners in our city. At some point, fish or cut bait.
Kind of hard to fish when you have so many crapping in the water.....
Quote from: dukesdad on November 12, 2008, 03:04:36 PM
And according to some, a Starbucks and a Potbelly. Regardless what businesses went in there, they would have contributed property and sales taxes for the last 10 years. Plus, we wouldn't have a rotting pile of crap sitting on one of the most prominent corners in our city. At some point, fish or cut bait.
Sure so Superblock can resemble the Liberty Cultural Center and its historically significant parking lot.
Ana,
Have you seen the Liberty Cultural Center lately, or are you still boycotting? Looks pretty damn good to me.
I'll venture out of my comfort zone to see what you have done with the place. Why did you decide not to raze that building?
Quote from: A.Malina on November 12, 2008, 02:59:00 PM
Quote from: Nazerac on November 12, 2008, 02:49:19 PM
Quote from: SILK on November 12, 2008, 02:45:16 PM
Details, details, details Beian .....
Why preserve a historic bank building when "economic developent" will yield a strip mall with a Radio Shack, BoRics, and Taco Bell?
A nail salon, and a taqueria.
don't forget a currency exchange, a laundromat and a ropa para putas shop.
I like the shop name. That will go so well on Cermak road right next to that love store.
Because we wanted the gym, stage, kitchen, party room, bar. It's good, cheap, usable space. The Sokol building was ugly, it's not too bad now. The parking lot will be done in the Spring, the ground needs to go through a Winter's freeze/thaw cycle so that it settles naturally. If we tried to pave it now, we'd have a huge birdbath where the house foundation was. We're going to try and get grants for permeable paving to minimize/eliminate runoff. If anyone has any grant ideas we'd be glad to hear them.
Might try the Lt. Govs office...permeable pavement is mentioned: http://www.standingupforillinois.org/cleanwater/rg_index.php
Also: http://www.paversearch.com/permeable-pavers-menu.htm
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on November 12, 2008, 01:17:18 PM
I'd never heard of the electoral board before. Where did you find this info, and does it describe their duties?
And that does seem to be a huge conflict of interest.
I found out about the electoral board in 2000 when an IVB petition was challenged by a friend of Tom Shaughnessy (a guy who owned a bar on Ogden). I decided to go to the hearing, which is where I found out that the local election board is made up of the mayor, the city clerk and the alderman with the most seniority.
I think this is Illinois state law.
Ted
Can't help but ask, the lap dancing bar?
Well Terri, there are only SO many bars on Ogden.....
Ah Jimmy's...Took my customers there for lunch, great sandwiches!
Quote from: Bear on November 12, 2008, 07:10:45 PM
Ah Jimmy's...Took my customers there for lunch, great sandwiches!
That's right, Jimmy's. Bear, I knew you'd remember.
Bear,
You must be the only guy in Berwyn who went to Jimmy's for the sandwiches.
Quote from: Terri on November 12, 2008, 06:57:40 PM
Can't help but ask, the lap dancing bar?
It was a bar on Ogden between Oak Park avenue and East Avenue on the north side of the street. I think the guy's name was something like Bud Gaspar? Apparently, the bar's owner and Tom Shaughnessy were real good friends.
Ted
Ted,
That's Buds Lounge, where Cigars and Stripes is now.
Shaughnessy was a regular.
Quote from: Ted on November 12, 2008, 07:57:39 AM
Here are some notes from tonight's city council meeting:
1. Mainstreet program - Alderman Erickson read a long statement (the reading lasted about 10 minutes) about Berwyn's Main Street program, during which he accused Alderman Skryd of poor management of the program; driving away the former director of Main Street; hiring the current director as a political favor even though the current director does not meet the experience criteria set by the board of directors; hiring the current director by "annointing him" rather than following the by-laws; driving away board members who were involved in Main Street; and alleging that Alderman Skryd suggested that the organization just say it had been "designated" by the state of Illinois when it had not. Erickson then asked for all documentation of Main Street, including its by-laws and suggested that all material be forwarded on to the States Attorney's office.
Alderman Chapman made a motion to ignore Erickson's agenda item because it had already been voted on at the October 14 city council meeting. Erickson responded that at the October 14 city council meeting Alderman Skryd was not present and that the city council had agreed that Alderman Skryd should answer Alderman Erickson's questions. The motion to ignore Alderman Erickson's agenda item because it had already been brought up at the October 14 city council meeting passed, with Lovero, Chapman and Skryd voting to ignore the agenda item; Aldermen Weiner and (I think) Day voting Present; Alderman Phelan voting Nay, saying he wanted to hear what Erickson had to say. Erickson read his communication as part of his vote, since it was obvious the motion to ignore the communication was going to pass.
Has MainStreet received designation by the State or not? Alderman Skryd suggested designation, to whom?
Ted, thank you for your reporting.
Also was anything mentioned at Council about the TOD study in the DD?