Dialogue has been moving fast and heavy over there at PublicWatchdog.org. As you’ll recall, they recently published a post titled: Time For A Senior Reality Check.
This one sub-thread made me chuckle.
Reader #1 Comment
“I think it’s time for the seniors to abandon the Center. Tell the whiners on this blog that they can have the “club house”. They can stop crying to daddy now!
Citizens of Park Ridge think they’re “North Shore” by the airport. They whine when the planes fly over their house. They whine when the Park District wants to place a cell tower in their back yard, they whine when local church(s) want to provide Park Ridge homeless comfort and now they whine over the senior center clubhouse.
North Shore want-a-be community, my ass!
EDITOR’S NOTE: We can’t speak for commentators to this post, but our beef with the Senior Center clubhouse is that it has sucked almost $1 million out of the taxpayers’ pockets in just the past six years, and it has done so for the benefit of approximately 800 Park Ridge “members” who constitute only a small fraction of all the seniors in Park Ridge – all while those “members” pay $35 in annual membership dues (up from $22 just a few years ago) and now want to lock the Park District’s taxpayers into an expensive “poison pill” buy-out.
By Anonymous on 01.31.11 11:38 am ”
Reader #2 Comment
“11:38am…
That’s a very reasoned approach to debating the issue at hand. Did you learn that skill in a Senior Center class offering you took?
By Anon on 01.31.11 12:46 pm”
Reader #1 Comment
“Anon:12:46
Thank you!
Actually, I learned that at New Trier! I know how North Shore communities take care of their elder citizens. Glad I don’t live in Park Ridge.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That makes two of us.
By Anonymous on 01.31.11 1:36 pm”
Enough said.
15 comments:
So does this mean you're moving to Wilmette?
Anon: Febuary 3, 2011 11:49 AM,
Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. Of course not. I just thought it an interesting series of comments. Could it be those comments struck home?
What happened last night? I hear the Board voted to close the center. Is that true?
No, they did not vote to close the senior center. But they still haven't approved the contract with Senior Services.
February 18, 2011 12:18 PM,
No, they did not vote to close the Senior Center. However, they did vote on a resolution.
I have yet to read the text of the resolution in its entirety, and will comment on the event and the text only after I have done so. Further, I intend to confer with Senior Center leadership prior to writing my comments.
That said, at the moment, my take regarding this situation, is that the “resolution as passed” is not a good outcome for Senior Center members or Park Ridge.
February 18, 2011 12:42 PM,
Look, this Board has no intention of entering into a new contract with Senior Services. It's never been their intent. The "we have questions" ploy was intended to buy them time because they do not have the courage of their convictions to vote the proposal up or down.
They want their "clubhouse". Based on what i've already read of the resolution, they've got it!
Who exactly wants a clubhouse?
The Board?
Could you let us know which of these Commissioners are running again in the April election?
Why won't they sit down and talk with us about it.
I smell a conspiracy.
Mary Wynn Ryan
Jim O'Brien
Bring back Jim Lange. He always took care of the Seniors!
February 18, 2011 1:35 PM,
Yes, the Board. They wanted control of the property - "for everyone".
Now they've got it, and they did so through the use of a trick, a questionably timed resolution chuck full of beautifully crafted words, that ultimately bind the Park District to nothing.
The Board is hoping, no praying, for this self-inflicted public relations dilemma to go away.
It has not!
It will not!
The Board is hoping that the seniors will continue to be fair and play nice, while they bring about “change.”
Those seniors present at the meeting now know the true metal of this board. It was tested and found lacking. This Board appeared to some to be cold, aloof, dangerous and uncaring. Just the kind of image Park Ridge needs.
I sure hope these seven are imbued with a lot of hope - they're going to need every bit of it. Because they sure don't seem possess a lot of common sense!
Solving this problem to everyone’s satisfaction was a no-brainer!
But of course, all this is just my opinion.
The board was right! Seniors have had exclusive access to that building for 30 years and that's long enough. We can't afford to keep carrying them for free!
Anon at 1:35
You are wrong! The Seniors have NEVER had "exclusive access" to the building. You must never go there or you would know that. Lots of different things go on in that building (camps, dog training, piano lessons, etc..). Are you a Park Board member? Because you sound like one.
And by the way, since the Park Board has now "resolved" to keep the senior center going, but will do so WITHOUT a contract, the operation of the senior center is going to get MORE EXPENSIVE, since there won't be any money coming in from the Senior Services group anymore to offset costs.
Mr. Butterly urges that the Park Board "vote the Agreement up or down".
To what purpose? Might one reasonably conclude that the Park Board has not taken that route because the most recent draft Agreement proposed for its consideration is not aceptable to it? And what message would THAT send to the seniors? Why should the Park Board do a useless act?
What is all the fuss about? The "Agreement" that expired back in December, 1995, was not replaced until June, 1996, but somehow the Senior Center survived. What is all the hysteria about now?
The Park District's share of the 2010 operating budget for the Senior Center was $185,000, and going forward that is only predicted to increase if the current model applies. Senior Services Inc. has proposed to pay, as its share of the 2011 operating costs of the Senior Center the sum of $60,000, and yet it seems to expect the Park Board, which may find such a "sharing" formula, to be unacceptable, to enter into such an Agreement. Should a "minority shareholder" dictate operational policy, especially when the "majority shareholder" is the taxpayer?
Circumstances have changed. The economy has changed. The old model may no longer be workable. The Park Board, in the exercise of its fiduciary duty to manage the assets of the park district in the best interests of all of the taxpayers and residents of the Park District would be remiss if it were to simply give a rubber-stamp approval of the suggested Agreement.
The citizenry should be proud that its elected officials are taking their time on this one.
The Park Board, through no fault of its own, has been without an Executive Director and a Superintendent of Recreation in recent months and should not be pressured to act without such staff both in place and prepared to make a recommendation regarding the terms under which the Senior Center would best continue to operate. After all, isn't that why they get paid the big bucks?
We should all calm down and give peace a chance. Let's not create needless anxiety for our beloved seniors. The Senior Center is not closing. The sky is not falling.
Post a Comment