When I first started writing about the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center issue, I mistakenly thought that I would see a fair and equitable outcome by this time. I mean, this is Park Ridge. I was naïve! I was wrong!
I base my conclusion on Board Meeting Minute history and a Board Member Comment to a Senior constituent.
| PRPD Commissioner Mary Wynn Ryan Email To Barb |
| “… Hi, Barbara -- just heard that the event this evening is from 6:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m., firm (the Library closes at 9). I thought it was 7 to 9 p.m. Maybe it's my misunderstanding but I thought you'd want to know. Also, what is going on with Helen Roppel? I have never spoken with her in my life. What are these "widely rumored comments" she is accusing me of? You know my position on senior programming and services -- we need more, and that's the Park District's mandate and promise, which does NOT depend on any deal with the fundraising foundation. (In fact, I'd like to have Senior Senate play a bigger role. But that's just me.) I will be there tonight, but I sure hope you can pass the word that I am not the bad guy. In fact, anyone who votes for anyone else in hopes that the old deal will come back is going to be disappointed. No one except Steven Vile is in favor of it. But everyone is in favor of more productive and enrolling senior programming to reduce the deficit, and that's a fact! See you tonight. Best, Mary” |
When I first started writing about the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center issue, I mistakenly thought the Senior’s were dealing with a Board made up of mature and astute men and women of reasonably-high moral character. I mean, this is Park Ridge. I was naïve! I was wrong!
I base my conclusion on the Boards unwillingness to discuss and vote UP or DOWN, the taxpayer-paid, board sanctioned, jointly-developed proposal, in spite it being on the Board Agenda twice so far this year. Instead, we are entertained by the reading and passage of an un-discussed “resolution”.
Proposed PRPD/SSI Agreement Vs. Unsolicited Resolution
| PRPD Board (Packet) Published - Resolution |
  |
When I first started writing about the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center issue, I thought all Park Ridge non-senior citizens tolerant. I mean, this is Park Ridge. I was naïve! I was wrong!
I base this on prior and current blog postings and “comments” by a former Park Ridge Park District Commissioner and local blogger and by some of his readers.
In my opinion, his Park Ridge Public Watchdog site is, as of late, starting to reek of anti-senior hostility, or at least Senior Center Member hostility. The last three or four posts especially.
| PR Public Watchdog Blog Posting Titles | Date Published |
| Winners, Voters and Suckers | 04/06/2011 |
| Time for a Senior Center Reality Check | 01/27/2011 |
| “Misinformers” Getting Park District’s Goat | 12/01/2011 |
| “Sharks” vs “Jets” – Who Ya Got? | 10/22/2010 |
Click on Blue Title to go to Posts and Comments.
Board Betting on Seniors Staying – No Matter What!
The Boards current no-response strategy is based, I believe, on their belief, that in the end, current Senior Center Members will stay and like it, no matter what. After all, this Board is resolved. The Board presently believes that current members are afraid to leave that space, with all that that departure entails.
The Board believes they’ve got Senior Center Members by their old gray feathers!
Maybe it’s time for Senior Center Members to take flight and peck Park Ridge’s Park District goodbye! Maybe its time to find a new home or create one; a better facility with with an enlightened partner less hostile to current Senior Center Member needs!
Maybe Mr. Trizna and his friends on the Board will finally respect us, not for fighting for a open discussion and the UP or DOWN vote we deserve, but for the courage and smarts to walk away from a bad relationship.
Maybe, they’ll even miss us. Na!
I’m sure, the ever resourceful members at the Public Watchdog team will find a way to help PRPD’s Board keep their “commitment” to Park Ridge’s remaining senior’s per the Board’s recently passed “resolution”. I mean, based on Mr. Trizna’s 12/01/2010 post, charging Senior’s “…. dues of $225/year (about 60 cents a day)….” should make things work just right.
I can read the headline now:
Seniors Get Out of Town; Solve Park Ridge Park District Budget Problems!
Well, now that I have been released from recent stress caused by those initial misconceptions and false ideas, I feel so much better.
Fellow Senior’s, once you’re released, so will you.
Of course, it’s only my opinion!
24 comments:
My god!!!!! You kill me!!!!!! On March 10th you devote a post and a link to publicwatchdog on your other blog. Apparently you did this to add some sort of credibility?!?! Look at who agrees with me!! "Take a look for yourself!"
Did you do this without reading the rest of their blog?? I tend to disagree with PD on most things (including the senior center) but they ar pretty damn consistent in their position related to government spending. Their position on the senior center has been posted MANY times in writing on their blog and in just as "agressive" terms as those that recently seem to offend you. They have a handy search bar. Just type in senior center and od some research. Beyond that, is their position on schools (which you applaud), the police station issue, community groups, like Coc and mneals on wheels. A person could browse their site for ten munites and see very clearly what their position is on these issues.
In other words, they have not changed one bit. It is you that picks and chooses. You may quibble with how they use the numbers (and again, I have no problem with Senior Center) but their argument is basically the same general one you use on Schools. "Taypayer dollars.....yada.....yada......yada.....cut....cut....cut"
April 11, 2011 3:55 PM,
So glad to see that you are an avid reader of this site and Butterly on Education. It is a fun read, isn’t it?
You wrote: “!!!!!! On March 10th you devote a post and a link to publicwatchdog on your other blog. Apparently you did this to add some sort of credibility?!?! Look at who agrees with me!! ‘Take a look for yourself!’”
Answer: Yes, I agreed with him. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t. When I do, I say so. When I don’t, I say so. Are you suggesting that I can only agree or disagree? How boring!
You wrote: “Did you do this without reading the rest of their blog??”
Answer: No! I read every word posted on that site going back to January 2010. There were ten postings referencing the Senior Center. I chose the last four postings because they were the only ones that justified my comment.
You wrote: “Their position on the senior center has been posted MANY times in writing on their blog and in just as ‘aggressive’ terms as those that recently seem to offend you.”
Answer: Really? Many times? Just as aggressively? I think not!
Lastly, regarding the Senior Center, you dust protest too much!
Mr. Butterly:
Since you were gracious enough to visit PublicWatchdog.org and comment, allow me to reciprocate.
First of all, my age (58) purportedly qualifies me as “senior” in some circles, although I belong to no “senior” organizations or knowingly avail myself of any economic benefits conferred solely because of my age. (If I have the good fortune to live long enough, however, and Social Security and Medicare remain solvent, I do plan to claim those two benefits).
As a “senior” myself, the charge that I am “anti-senior” or harbor “Senior Center Member hostility” is just plain wrong. My hostility extends only to the entitlement mentality of some people (of various ages) who, for one reason or other, believe the normal rules shouldn’t apply to them; or who want the rules changed not for fairness’ sake but simply for their personal benefit.
That’s why I oppose the Senior Center members trying to leverage the Park District into a contract that is nothing but bad for the District and its taxpayers (other than the Senior Center members themselves, of course). As far as I can tell from Park District financials, no other special interest group has come remotely close to the almost $1 million of taxpayer subsidies the Senior Center members have received since 2005, from the Park District alone, to cover the Senior Center’s operating deficits. How do you folks justify that?
Although I oppose the contract, I appeared at that February 17th Park Board meeting and challenged the Board to vote UP or DOWN on the Senior Center contract rather, than hide behind that insipid resolution, because I believe the Senior Center members deserve such a vote, as do the taxpayers. In response to my remarks, my "friends on the Board” (as you characterize them) once again deferred the contract vote and passed the resolution. I think that is wrong, but it is their prerogative.
I suggested that $225/year dues figure because: (a) that’s about what it would take to cover the average annual Senior Center deficit if approx. 800 members paid it; (b) it’s a relatively modest amount (less than $4.50/wk) for an amenity members claim is so important to them; and (c) it’s consistent with the pay-as-you-go/pay-for-value/don’t-bury-future-generations-in-debt philosophy of government that I support.
But if it’s any consolation to you and your fellow members, I also support (and supported during my 8 years on the Park Board) user fees for sports, other programming, and facilities usage (e.g., the Community Center and swimming pools) that covers their fully-loaded operating costs, leaving the taxpayers to pick up capital costs.
In conclusion, I must compliment you on your “Time to go” argument: it’s precious, albeit disingenuous, because none of you are going to walk away from the sweet deal you already have, contract or not. And you know it.
But I’ll make a friendly little wager with you: If you folks find yourselves “an enlightened partner” who will provide a facility as fine as the Senior Center and also cover an average of $165,000/year in operating deficits, I’ll donate $100 to your new digs at the grand opening – and not even ask for my name to appear on any “donor” list.
Just let me know when you find one.
Regards,
Well said Mr. Trizna.
You reflect the views of myself and many of my neighbors with whom I have discussed this issue.
Mr. Trizna,
Thank you for stopping by, clarifying your Senior Center beliefs and “straightening me out” on the rest.
It is too bad that you didn’t take the time to do the same on your own blog site. I’m sure my take on some of those posts and comments would have been much different.
At the moment, here is what I think we both agree on.
We both:
- want at the District level,dollars-out to be no more than dollars-in
- want an UP or DOWN vote on the “proposal”
- think the Board acted cowardly by enacting the “resolution”
- think Senior Center dues of $35.00 are too little.
Where we ultimately differ, I believe, is our perspective on Senior Center Members and their ability to pay significantly more than the going rate of surrounding Senior Centers. I will be discussing that issue in the next week or so.
You appear to hold to the position that all taxpaying senior citizens of Park Ridge are capable of paying significantly more for access to “that building” and senior related activities held within.
FEE HISTORY
Park Ridge Senior Center (Resident) Single Membership was $35.00 but is now, $45.00. (Resident) Husband and Wife Membership was $58.00 but is now, $68.00. (Non-Resident) Single Membership was $58.00 but is now $68.00, and (Non-Resident) Husband and Wife was $87.00 but is now $97.00.
Additional fees are charged for special events and trips.
Now, while you and your law associates can charge what the market will bare, most Senior’s that I know through my PRSC membership, cannot. You are still working. They are retired; many for 15 years or more. Most receive Social Security, and some receive additional funds from investments. These are not rich people by any stretch of the imagination.
Question #1: Do you honestly believe these Members capable of paying your ridicules $225.00 fee?
These same people pay taxes; dollars shunted south, skimmed and returned for use at their Park District. Now you want them to pay more taxes (fees) for use of a facility and services they have already paid for, because you want the Park District to break-even or make a profit in every aspect of its operation?
Question #2: Is that what you’re talking about?
Mr. Butterly,
You’re looking at this all wrong. Seniors are victims; victims of they’re own success. Senior’s created the Senior Center! They envisioned what it is today! They are now and will be the Park Ridge Senior Center or there will be no Senior Center; with or without the “clubhouse”!
Mr B:
Mr Trizna can answer for himself but here is my answer.
The truth is that some senior center members could afford the 225 and some could not. But ya see this doctrine embraced by so many today (and on the education by you) has a very simple answer for that. Some cannot afford it???? SO WHAT!!!!! That is how they would answer. If a progams cannot support itself or a non profit cannot get enough donations get rid of it!!! There is no room for "compassion" in this quest for cuts. You are upset about the senior center and I do not blame you but keep in mind the wacked contributions to meals on wheels and CoC.
Put another way, let me ask you a question. Do you really think that all the teachers on your list on the other blog can afford to take your suggested 15% pay cut (probably with more to come)??? Of course not all of them can. I am guessing that you would have a very simple answer for them - SO WHAT!!! Of course I am sure you do not see the irony in this that I do.
senior center rates are still $35; in fact, only recently did they go up to $35, as a Senior Services, Inc. board member reported at the pre-election Library meeting. And before you go into how much cheaper Niles and DesPlaines Senior Center memberships are in your next blog, keep in mind that virtually everything is cheaper there, because they have light industry, hotels, casinos and various other commercial operations Park Ridge does not have and has never wanted to have. Commercial operations are taxed at a higher rate, which takes pressure off of homeowner taxes -- at a cost of ambience, of course. Park Ridge is a bedroom community by design -- that's why our taxes are higher for fewer bells and whistles. Niles has a free bus, too; that'd be nice, but it's not what Park Ridge can afford.
Anon: April 12, 2011 4:16 PM,
I am sure Mr. Trizna appreciates your vote of confidence when it comes to his ability to answer.
You said: “The truth is that some senior center members could afford the 225 and some could not.”
Answer: Yes, SOME seniors can afford $225.00+, in order to continue being an active Park Ridge Senior Center member. What does that have to do with charging a reasonable price for that membership? The question not being answered is: “what cost will the market bear? At what price-point will current members stop being members? Compassion plays no part in answering that question.
You said: “Put another way, let me ask you a question. Do you really think that all the teachers on your list on the other blog can afford to take your suggested 15% pay cut (probably with more to come)??? Of course not all of them can. I am guessing that you would have a very simple answer for them - SO WHAT!!! Of course I am sure you do not see the irony in this that I do.”
Answer: I don’t think that any of them believe they can afford to take a 15% pay cut any more than a manager at Jewel can afford to take a 50% pay cut or worse yet, the loss of a job. My suggestion is based on my knowledge of the District’s budget and its long-term debt and the need to reduce payroll costs by 15% or more in order to return to the District to a stable financial position. To me the choice was; do you want all of the teachers to keep their job and have classrooms and programs remain as they are today or would you rather let good teachers go, increase class size and diminish the remaining programs? I am only stating that which needs to be done, in my opinion. The situations are not the same and no, there is no irony in that.
Anon: April 12, 2011 3:41 PM,
An interesting take on victonhood!
Anon: April 12, 2011 4:57 PM,
You said: “senior center rates are still $35; in fact, only recently did they go up to $35, as a Senior Services, Inc. board member reported at the pre-election Library meeting.”
Answer: You can believe what you want. But these are the facts:
Park Ridge Senior Center (Resident) Single Membership was $35.00 but is now, $45.00. (Resident) Husband and Wife Membership was $58.00 but is now, $68.00. (Non-Resident) Single Membership was $58.00 but is now $68.00, and (Non-Resident) Husband and Wife was $87.00 but is now $97.00.
Take it or leave it!
You said: “And before you go into how much cheaper Niles and DesPlaines Senior Center memberships are in your next blog, keep in mind that virtually everything is cheaper there, because they have light industry, hotels, casinos and various other commercial operations Park Ridge does not have and has never wanted to have. Commercial operations are taxed at a higher rate, which takes pressure off of homeowner taxes -- at a cost of ambience, of course. Park Ridge is a bedroom community by design -- that's why our taxes are higher for fewer bells and whistles. Niles has a free bus, too; that'd be nice, but it's not what Park Ridge can afford.”
Answer: And?
Mr. Butterly:
When I checked the Park District’s website 5 minutes ago, it still showed resident membership at $35, nonresident at $53, resident couples at $58, and nonresident couples at $87. No offense intended, but I’ll go with those as the official numbers.
But even if your numbers are correct, they’re still underpriced by almost $200/year per member – because the cost of the Senior Center is about $225/year per member more than what you and your fellow members are paying, according to the Park District's financials.
Given the simple math of this deal, what’s the relevance of “the going rate of surrounding Senior Centers”? How does what other towns’ politicians and bureaucrats are doing make the $165,000 average annual subsidy Park Ridge taxpayers have to cough up each year for your semi-private clubhouse any more palatable?
Similarly, what’s the relevance of Senior Center members’ “ability to pay”? The Senior Center is not a necessity: it’s merely an amenity – like a Community Center or Bally’s membership, or “premium” cable, or going to a movie, or Starbucks coffee, or a new Cadillac. If seniors don’t have the money for that particular amenity (or they prefer to spend it on other things), they don’t have to use the Senior Center. That’s their prerogative. But why should their prerogative become the taxpayers’ obligation?
You acknowledge that “SOME seniors can afford $225.00+ in order to continue being an active Park Ridge Senior Center member.” So whay aren't any of those seniors paying it? What entitles THEM to the equivalent of a $200/year handout from the taxpayers?
Isn't that just welfare for the well-off?
If you and your fellow Senior Center members don’t want to pay $4.35/week for the Senior Center (that's what $225/year comes out to), then you clearly don’t value it at that amount. Why, then, should the taxpayers keep subsidizing you at that rate?
Hey Butterly....
A few posts back you challenged some of the Park Board Commissioners and candidates to vote up or down here on your blog.
Do the same today with the "Senior Senate" and membership of the Senior Center.
Are you willing to pack up and leave the Park District funded facility, find a new facility and pay for it completely out of dues collected through Senior Services?
Come on...I dare you.
Trinizi pulled his latest discussion before I had an opportunity to respond to his last harangue about my comments on the Park Ridge Watchdog. You can see my prior comments on the Watchdog Blog under Winners, Voters and Suckers - 4/6/11 included on this blog.
He doesn't like the senior ctr members "entitlement mentality". "They are Hand Out Recipients". "Their shameless, we're old so give us staff" He states, "no other interest group has come close to what the senior center has cost the Park District. Why are the members of the senior center being singled out as the only demographic in Park Ridge not covering the full cost of their actitivies. What about that other interest group - children? We're told not all seniors participate in the senior center. Well not all children participate in the activities provided for children. Trinzi only wants to discuss bricks and mortar, i.e. the senior center vs. the loft. But let's take a look at everything.
For Seniors Only
1 - The Senior Center
(Presently costing the Park District $185,000)
For Children Only
1 - Playgrounds - slides, monkey bars, etc.
2 - Centennial sled hill
3 - Skateboard park
4 - South Park kiddie pool
5 - The loft for PR baseball
6 - Centennial kiddie pool
(These six items probably exceed what is spent on the senior center alone.)
Primarily For Children
1 - Two Centennial pools.
2 - Hinkley pool
3 - Oakton pool -discussion re huge repair bills
4 - Ice Rink
5 - Soccer and baseball fields:
a) Northwest Park
b) Hinkley Park
c) Maine Park
d) Centennial Park
e) SE Park
Need I say more? Not that I have anything against children but let's be fair. I think the senior center is a bargain when compared to what is spent on the children in Park Ridge.
Sorry I was unable to respond sooner. I had to make a choice; get a little sunshine working on my boat or sitting on my behind answering comments.
The boat is starting to look good!
Mr. Trizna,
My numbers are correct!
As to the remainder of you comments, I don’t know what to say. You’re $225.00 fee will not fly in the real world.
Sorry man!
Anonymous @ 817...
Other than the baseball loft, which restricts use to a certain group, and by "use" I mean the storage of baseball equipment, uniforms, etc. None of those things you cited as existing soley or essentially for kids restrict their use by age, none of them.
You can use them, I can use them, my kids can use them, my Grandparents can use them.
The Senior Center restricts its membership by age.
If a Senior takes their grandchild to the South Park wading pool, are they not in fact "using" the facility as well?
Are you saying a park, like Northwest Park isn't used by Seniors? I see many everyday when I walk by the park with the grandchildren at the playground, or they themselves sitting in the park enjoying the day. Is that not "using" the park?
The sled hill, is perhaps another animal completely, but there is no age restriction, and there are very minimal costs to keep the sled hill "in operation."
And just so you know (1) there is no Southeast (SE) park and (2) I'm not sure if "Trinzi" is your pet name for someone, but the person you are railing against -- it's Trizna.
Mr. Butterly:
Then somebody should tell the Park District, otherwise some poor fixed-income senior might really be disappointed to learn that dues have gone up from $35/year to a whopping $45/year.
Neither a $35/year or a $45/year membership fee for a facility that has been losing, on average, $165,000 for the past 6 years has any connection to the “real world.” In the “real world,” the Senior Center would have gone bankrupt and closed down 5 years ago.
Which gets back to my questions which you didn't answer:
1. What’s the relevance of “the going rate of surrounding Senior Centers” to what the Park District should charge Senior Center members?
2. What’s the relevance of Senior Center members’ “ability to pay” to what the Park District should charge Senior Center members?
3. Why should the taxpayers continue to subsidize each Senior Center member (including yourself) to the tune of $4.35/week when you and your fellow members aren’t willing to pay that nominal amount?
Or was “Sorry man!” your answer?
Buttery,
If it's such a bad deal you have now, why have you not been able to find a "better" facility or arrangement where you can go?
If the members of the Senior Center are being treated so poorly why have you not left yet?
A few facts, maybe to cut through some of the arguments I am reading here, some of which seem to be muddling the issue...
1. The Park District is committed to running senior programming at the Senior Center. Wasn't making that statement the whole point of the Resolution the Park Board passed?
2. It is highly unlikely that costs will be reduced by raising fees to $225 per senior member. Why? Because the vast majority of seniors simply won't pay it, either because they don't feel they can afford it or they think it is too much when they compare to fees for comparable services in the surrounding communities. They could continue to go to events at the center without paying that fee, because they already pay for many things (trips, certain classes) and would just continue to do so, but not join to be a "member." In fact I believe that some on the Park District board have on occasion expressed concerns about charging anything for membership, on the premise that all the programs and activities should be open to all in the district, without regard to "membership."
3. The burden for limiting costs of the Senior Center, since it is a Park District building and the activities are Park District programs rests squarely with the Park District. NOT THE SENIORS, and NOT SENIOR SERVICES or the SENIOR SENATE.
3. The "agreement" that was in place for 30 years, and which the Park Board refuses to vote on, results in income to the Park District. Some seem to believe that that agreement places some onerous limits on the Park District's ability to raise money through usage of the building. In fact, the agreement does not do that. The agreement is a revenue RAISER not a revenue drain. And if someone does not agree with that, please point out for all of us how exactly the agreement causes the Park District to lose money. Honestly, I would like to know.
Yes, the senior center restricts it's membership by age. The baseball and soccer teams and cheerleaders are all restricted by age. I don't think a senior citizen can join any of those groups. Also, if a grandparent takes his grandchildren to the South Park wading pool, he's only there to supervise or watch over the grandchildren, otherwise he wouldn't be there. Also, he probably wouldn't fit in the pool. He's taking the place of a nanny. Many of the activities at the ice rink are restricted to certain age groups. You mentioned the sled hill but didn't mention the skateboard park. No seniors there. I'm sure you see seniors walking in Northwest Park but you missed my comment that these parks are used much more by children than other people. And by the way, there is a SE Park, it's over by the Yost develpment, a few blocks west of Canfield.
Bottom line, the park district spends a great deal more money on children than seniors in Park Ridge. It's no contest. Why are they the only group that is being singled out and called derogatory names, i.e. "Hand Out Recipients" - "Entitlement Mentality", because they have one facility in town that they use exclusively. $185,000 is a drop in the bucket, compared to what they are spending on children. Seniors are the only group that is being asked to solely support thier activity. It's simply not fair. The 20% of the park board budget that was contributed by seniors (20% of residents are seniors), isn't coming back to them in a proportionate manner.
Anon: April 13, 2011 10:38 AM,
You said: “A few posts back you challenged some of the Park Board Commissioners and candidates to vote up or down here on your blog. Do the same today with the "Senior Senate" and membership of the Senior Center.”
Answer: I was asking the Commissioners and candidates for a commitment to bring the agreement up for discussion and an UP or DOWN vote. This request has been made before; also without success. Is that what you’re asking?
You said: “Are you willing to pack up and leave the Park District funded facility, find a new facility and pay for it completely out of dues collected through Senior Services?”
Answer: No! That said, I am willing to pick up and leave the Park Ridge funded facility and take my business elsewhere should this issue not be resolved equitably and soon. Further, I with the help of like-minded members ARE LOOKING at other options. If we are successful, we will most certainly bring it up to the Senior Senate for consideration and an UP or DOWN vote. Until then, I will be publishing a series of blog-posts displaying information about the other area Senior Centers and their activities. I hope all BOSI readers find them informative.
In the mean time, I believe most Senior Center members will probably lay low, withhold their money, see what the PRPD Board “resolution” means and grin and bear it!
You said: “Come on...I dare you.”
Answer: Oh please!
It's not SE Park. It's Jaycee. Stop by and check out the sign.
Thanks for the help. I guess the name has changed since I lived close by.
Post a Comment