Member - Park Ridge Senior Center Senate
Over the past 30 years, the Senior Center and the Park Board have had an agreement with respect to the relationship between the two entities, thereby setting the framework for, among other things, the payments made to the Park District, by Senior Services. As discussed on this blog, the 2011 agreement remains unsigned and a worthless “Resolution” has been signed in its place. To my dismay, the senior center membership has been vilified, denigrated, said to have “entitlement mentalities”, and portrayed as, “I’m old, give me stuff” in some forums and by some non-senior residents. Seniors only wish that the Park Board would consider spending just a fraction of the revenue they spend on children, on its senior citizens.
I don’t believe that the Park Board realizes that the Senior Center is a “home”, not a “club house”, to its members. In many cases, they have outlived many of their family and friends. It provides an environment where they can feel vital and appreciated. Knowing that the park board can, at its discretion, as provided in the language of the “Resolution”, close this “home”, leaves the membership feeling betrayed and deserted by the Board, after spending most of their lives and paying taxes in this community.
Perhaps the following poignantly drafted Letters to the Editor, of the New York Times, will enlighten them on the need to make their seniors feel they won’t be thrown to the wolves and the humanity required when making decisions regarding the fair distribution of Park District funds:
| To The Editor: Re: “Alone, Together” (News article, March 27): I am 92 years old and widowed, and going to my senior center is vital to my day-to-day life because it helps me have a life! Other people my age need conversation with people. We need something to do other than watching TV, because sometimes we can’t see very well or hear very well and we need to speak with someone face to face. If I were to stay home, my life would be full of dull moments and I wouldn’t be able to speak what’s on my mind. It’s very important to keep connected, and my senior center is the place that allows me to keep connected with old friends and new friends. Dorothy McCann New York, March 28, 2011 |
| To The Editor: Your poignant article captured the importance that senior centers play in the lives of thousands of older New Yorkers. The need for friendship and a peer community is basic to our humanity throughout life, at 5, 65 or 95. For the elderly who have experienced much loss and whose world has gotten smaller, their local senior center becomes central to daily living. To thrive in old age in New York City, neighborhoods must be truly age-friendly. Nothing is more age-friendly, than neighborhood-based senior centers. Public dollars are wisely spent ensuring that senior centers thrive, allowing New Yorkers to grow old in their community with dignity. Igal Jellinek & Bobbi Sackman New York, March 28, 2011 |
13 comments:
Ms. Roppel (and Mr. B):
I feel your pain but please!! After reading what has been said in the "other forums" on this issue ( and others), do you really think that this letter is going to change any minds?
Your letter touches me but I have never had a problem with the Senior Center in the first place. Even though my parents do not live in the area, your point about the SC being a family for some who no longer have a family is one of the reasons I think it is a good thing.
But please do no expect some dramatic change from the other forums. In fact I would expect some rather harsh reply related to "if there is real value they should be able to charge more.....etc"
Perhaps my letter won't change the minds of some people, but perhaps it will make them stop and think about some of the cruel statements that have been made about members of the senior center. Also, hopefully it will make the Park Board members reflect on just how much money is spent on the children in Park Ridge and how little is spent on its senior population. If 20% of the population of Park Ridge are seniors, are they receiving 20% of the park district funds?
I am a “senior” (58+). I also know a little bit about the Park District from having spent 8 years (1997-2005) on the Park Board. And I am the owner and editor of PublicWatchdog.org, which has criticized the “entitlement mentality” among those Senior Center members who insist the taxpayers should keep subsidizing the Senior Center’s operations, which they have done to the tune of $993,000 just since 2005.
I write to express my disagreement with the points raised by Ms. Roppel, starting with her point that the term “Senior Center” effectively is interchangeable with “home.” The Senior Center is a “club,” which is why it has “membership,” albeit only a small fraction of Park Ridge’s senior population; and why it also has “dues,” albeit nominal ones. Calling that club a “home” is the kind of “spin” we may have come to expect, sadly enough, from our politicians, but it is unworthy of respectable citizens like Ms. Roppel.
Ms. Roppel wants the “fair distribution of Park District funds” and questions how much the District spends on children. How ironic, given that the Senior Center members are one of only two special interest groups within the Park District that has its “own” building – the other being the small equipment storage building at Busse and Elm operated by the District’s baseball/softball affiliate.
While on the Park Board I supported raising user fees across the board (including on kids’ activities) to try to recover the fully-loaded costs of that use. I believed then, and I believe even more strongly today, that if the taxpayers are providing the capital for the construction of our parks and recreational facilities, as well as funds for basic maintenance, then those benefitting from what amounts to preferred or semi-exclusive use should pay the full costs attendant to their use.
Currently the single-season fees for children’s soccer and baseball/softball are in the $80-100 range – but that’s for a 3 to 3-1/2 month season of semi-exclusive field use 2-4 times/week. Similar charges apply to the District’s other children’s activities: for example, a one-month, 10-session cheerleading class costs $80. Compared to those rates, the $225/year Senior Center membership dues I proposed are a bargain!
The argument that Senior Center members need the Center to “feel vital and appreciated” would seem to be belied by the 80% of Park Ridge seniors who don’t feel any need to cloister themselves with their age-peers at the Center. I suspect many of them have discovered that the best way to “feel vital and appreciated” is to actually be vital – by demonstrating what seniors can still do for themselves and for the community at large, thereby earning the community’s appreciation.
In his column in the April 1 edition of the Wall Street Journal, senior economics writer Stephen Moore bemoans the fact that: “We’ve become a nation of takers, not makers.” I would hope that the Senior Center members who grew up in the 1930s, ‘40s and ‘50s can still remember what it was like when the converse was true; and that they would want to be beacons of that converse truth for those younger generations being seduced by the current fashion of taking more than they give.
In conclusion, I have no desire to see the Senior Center closed. But I also cannot see any legitimate justification for the overburdened taxpayers of this community continuing to subsidize the Center’s membership (i.e., its users) at an average of $165,000/year because the Center’s members aren’t even willing to cover that cost by paying “fair” dues for the “club” they claim is really more like their home.
If each Senior Center member doesn’t want to pay $4.35/week for the use of the Center, why should the taxpayers?
Part 1 of 2
In response to Mr. Trinzi’s comments, I’d like to say that at 58 years of age, you are just barely in the group that is considered a senior citizen. You are on the cusp of just beginning to even realize or understand in a small way the many problems that face seniors on a daily basis: the deterioration of health, the death of spouses, children and friends, the endless empty hours and the erosion of self confidence from lack of meaningful contact with others, the lack of respect and feelings of uselessness.
I didn’t say “Senior Center” is interchangeable with “home” but that term certainly raises the ire of you and some others. The members think of the Senior Center and use the term “home”, because many of their homes are now empty, and their “new families” are the members of the Senior Center. These are the people they see and with whom they interact on a regular basis.
I certainly don’t think I’m “unworthy” of legitimate thought or opinion for using the term “home”. You seem to have difficulty expressing yourself on any topic, without trying to demean the other party in the debate. On your Park Ridge Watchdog blog you have referred to Senior Center members as “shameless and saying we’re old, so give me stuff”, members have “entitlement mentalities”, stating that “Senior Center members aren’t and don’t deserve to be, either an economic or a political force in this community and that’s why they are just another group of hand-out recipients”, and calling comments “tripe”. Why must you stoop to these mud slinging tactics, which hit far below the belt? A little more intelligent discourse would be welcome.
Even though you strongly believe that those benefitting should pay the full costs attendant to their use of the Park District, it simply has never happened, whether it be children or seniors. Why, therefore, do you only demean and talk about the seniors? You state that not all senior residents use the Senior Center but never mention that all children don’t use the Park District either. We are one of two groups that have their own building. That building was built many years ago and has been fully amortized over the years. Also, the Summer Camp children also use the building, as well as a few other groups who use the building for meetings and activities. The Center of Concern recently used the building for a retirement party. Why hasn’t there been a meaningful marketing program put in place to bring additional revenue from other uses of the building, after 5:00 PM when it sits vacant?
Part 2 of 2
You mention that 80% of the seniors don’t have to cloister themselves with their age-peers and why don’t our members give back to the community. Not all seniors are faced with the many issues I mentioned in the first paragraph. Many still have families that are attentive and include them in their activities.
You again demean the Senior Center membership for “taking more than they give”. It’s just so simple to paint everyone with the same brush. How would you know what the center membership does. You’ve never been there. The membership of the Senior Center participate in many social service arenas. Following are just a few: made 72 Blankets of Hope for the wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, made hospice throws for patients at Lutheran General Hospital, for 2 years participated in the Angel Tree project with the Salvation Army – gifts for 25 children, coat drive for the Salvation Army, collect pop tops for Ronald McDonald House, collect box tops for education and have donated them to 3 Park Ridge schools, collected over 1,000 prescription bottles for third world countries, canned food collection for Maine Township Food Pantry - on-going, annually participate in the Community Canned Food Drive – last year collected over 1,000 lbs of food, and an on-going collection of items for PADS.
Many of its members, individually, also give back to the community. I for one have been the Director of Volunteers for the Park Ridge Civic Orchestra, participated in many fund raising activities for the Center of Concern, was the Social Services Chairman for the Park Ridge 20th Century Club, among other things. There are others among us who have similar backgrounds. But not everyone is capable of doing these types of things. Many suffer from lack of self confidence, memory loss and can’t drive at night, which preclude them from taking part in these activities.
In response to your conclusion, you are again singling out the seniors to become self supporting. Why do you feel that we are the only demographic that should completely support their activities? Your “overburdened taxpayers” are 20% senior citizens. I hate to beat a dead horse, but are they receiving 20% of the Park District budget?
Ms. Roppel:
Don’t blame me for all these groups (like your Senior Center) that keep insisting that I’m a “senior”: e.g., “Senior Center membership begins at age 55.” Personally, I believe “senior” status begins at 65. But, then again, I’m not trying to build, maintain and/or expand a political or social network – or asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer subsidies – based solely on age.
Every one of those statements you reference (albeit out of context) describes attitudes displayed by members of the Senior Center in response to legitimate criticism and “intelligent discourse” on the issues of why private corporation Park Ridge Senior Services, Inc. (“Seniors Inc.”) deserves a contract for use of the Senior Center; and why the taxpayers should be subsidizing approximately 1,000 members of the Senior Center by an average of $165,000/year, especially when Seniors Inc. ended 2009 (the last year for which it has a Form 990 on file) with almost $216,000 in its coffers.
I’m not singling out seniors. I think all public programs in the nature of amenities – virtually everything the Park District provides – should be self-supporting. That’s why PublicWatchdog also has criticized taxpayer subsidies for various children’s programs, including the Park District’s summer camps as “tax-subsidized summer baby-sitting service” (5/10/10) and District 64’s tax-subsidized parent-paid lunch program (3/17/11).
You’re absolutely right when you say that I don’t know all the things Senior Center members do for the community. But what I do know is that they take an average of $160,000 out of the taxpayers’ pockets every year, totaling almost $1 million – yes, that’s $1 MILLION – since 2005. And I don’t think that’s right.
I’m not suggesting that everybody can or should “give back to the community.” As you point out, some simply can’t. But whether they can and do, or can’t and don’t, what gives them the right to keep taking money out of the taxpayers' pockets to support their social life?
I commend you, however, for your question: “Why hasn’t there been a meaningful marketing program put in place to bring additional revenue from other uses of the building, after 5:00 PM when it sits vacant?” You raise a valid point, and it likely will be addressed by PublicWatchdog in one of next week’s posts.
I’m not trying to classify you as anything. I’m just trying to make you understand that seniors face daunting problems as they age. The Senior Center didn’t set the age of 55 as the point where we become seniors. Rather the business complex at large made this determination, i.e. AARP, movie theaters, etc.
Every one of those statements that you made, in your words, describes attitudes displayed by members of the Senior Center in response to criticism of the Park District in refusing to sign a long standing contract and support the Senior Center. I had to do a little investigating to find out the amount allocated for Recreation, in the Park District’s 2010 budget. The 2011 budget has not been posted as yet. The 2010 Recreation budget was $7,604,649, and the amount thereof spent on the Senior Center was $185,000 (I’m taking the higher figure). This translates to 2.45% of the Park District budget. You, as a former member of the Park Board, I’m sure were aware of the infinitesimal percentage of the budget spent on the Senior Center. And you castigate the membership categorizing them as “shameful and saying, I’m old, so give me stuff”. I almost can’t believe it. I think you have called the wrong people “shameful”. I think that term should be saved for the actions of the Park Board. They should hang their heads for the disproportionate amount of money spent on their senior citizens, as they heap millions on the other residents of Park Ridge.
If 20% of the population of Park Ridge are senior citizens, then senior citizens are contributing 20% of the tax dollars that make up the Park District budget, which translates to $1,520,929. If we subtract the abysmal amount of $185,000 spent to keep the Senior Center open, where is the Park Board spending the balance of $1,335,929? DEFINITELY NOT ON THEIR SENIOR CITIZENS. No, they throw stones and call the Senior Center our “Club House” and complain ad nauseam about what it is costing them to keep it open, while they spend the senior citizens tax dollars elsewhere.
And let’s not hear another word about all of the senior citizens not using the senior center. The Park District is spending $185,000, of the $1,520,929 that senior citizens are contributing to the Park District budget, and they think that there aren’t enough seniors using the building. Please!
You mention that Seniors Inc. ended 2009 with almost $216,000 in its coffers. It is my understanding that these funds were bequeathed to the Senior Center by former members. The money is spent to make improvements to the building, i.e. building a stage which is used often, or to make purchases, such as pool tables, a piano, a sound system. This is saving the Park District money, so they don’t have to use any of that $1,520,929 that senior citizens tax dollars contribute to their budget, that they spend elsewhere. Thank goodness the senior membership is thinking of the center and leaving them money to keep things going. The Park District isn’t.
Ms. Roppel:
That age 55 "senior" status benchmark is something the Senior Center and Park Ridge Senior Services Inc. set, so don't blame anybody else for it.
Had your "investigating" taken you to Page 109 of the Park District's 2010 budget (available on the Park District's website), you would have found that total budgeted revenues for the Senior Center in 2010 were $306,770, and total expenses were $478,295 - producing an expected loss of $171,525, to go with the ACTUAL loss of $173,168 in 2008, the last full year of actual financials posted on the District's website.
If only 1,000 Park Ridge seniors belong to the Senior Center, those $170,000+/year losses that the taxpayers have to cover out of their own pockets effectively go directly into the pockets of each of you Senior Center members, to the tune of $170 apiece, every year.
What is so special about you 1,000 seniors to warrant that kind of hand-out?
Mr. Trinzi:
I read with interest your recent response to my comments. No where did you mention the miserly 2.45% of the Park District budget that is spent on the Senior Center. But then, as you pointed out, the shortfall wasn’t $185,000 but actually $171,525. Therefore, that percentage went down to 2.26% of the budget, which is astounding when you consider the amount that senior citizens contribute to the Park District budget. And I have additional information on that subject, which follows.
I have recently learned that the percentage of senior citizens in Park Ridge, that we have been quoting, is inaccurate. Mary Wynn Ryan said it was 40%. You corrected that amount, on the Park Ridge Watchdog, and said that it was 20%. The actual amount is approximately 35.9%, which changes the complexion of things dramatically.
Senior citizens actually contribute $2,730,069 to the Park District Recreation budget. I find it absolutely amazing that the Board complains about spending $171,525 on the Senior Center. The thought process alone leaves me baffled.
In your conclusion you state “If only 1,000 Park Ridge seniors belong to the Senior Center, those $170,000+/year losses that the taxpayers have to cover out of their own pockets effectively go directly into the pockets of each of you Senior Center members, to the tune of $170 apiece, every year. Well let’s do the math. According to the last published data, the population of Park Ridge, as of 7/2009, is 36,806. We, therefore, have 13,213 senior citizens in Park Ridge. Each of the 1,000 members of the Senior Center have, therefore, paid $206.61 into the Park District budget “out of their own pockets”.
Each individual member of the Senior Center has personally covered the amount you and the Park Ridge Park Board continue to throw in their faces. They are constantly saying that not all the seniors in Park Ridge use the Senior Center. I guess you can now understand, that the members of the Senior Center are paying their own way. As you once said to me after calling what I said “tripe” on your Park Ridge Watchdog, I believe that is Game, Set and Match.
Unfortunately, costs for staffing and operating the building would require that the users of the Senior Center would have to pay something over $200 per annum in addition to the tax monies they already pay to support the operation. Just as those who take classes, belong to the Community Center or make other use of the other spaces have to pay their taxes to keep the facilities up and running in general and then also pay fees and/or dues for their specific use of specific services and facilities. It's not a plot. It's just economic reality. It's more exciting to see it as a plot, but it's not accurate.
Your point is well taken but Senior Center members pay taxes and on top of that pay dues, plus also pay fees for a large majority of the activities in which they take part at the Senior Center. The large majority of park district facilities are used by children and in no way do the fees and taxes paid by their parents completely offset the cost. The largest portion of the Park District budget is allocated to paying the balance. Seniors are receiving 2.25% of a $7,604,649 Park District budget and the majority of the balance is being used to support childrens activities. 2.25% is a minuscule amount, when compared to what is being spent on the children in this community. Seniors aren't even asking for a level playing field.
Ms. Roppel:
Are you being intentionally or merely inadvertently misleading in using the term "seniors" as if it means the same thing as "Senior Center members" - especially when those Senior Center members (who can be as young as 55) comprise less than 1,000 of the approx. 7,000 Park Ridge "seniors" measured by the U.S. Census Bureau's 65 and older standard?
Instead of complaining about what "the children" cost the Park District in what appears to be an effort to shift attention away from the $170,000 operating loss the Senior Center saddles the Park District's taxpayers with each year, can you please answer the question I posed in my last comment: Why do Senior Center members think they deserve the roughly $170 hand-out each of them effectively gets from the taxpayers each year by virtue of the cumulative $170,000 Senior Center subsidy?
I'm not trying to mislead anyone by using the term "senior" and "Senior Center Member" but I think you are making that statement to try and cast doubt on my calculations. In calculating how much Senior Center Members contribute to the Park District budget, you must use the total senior population of Park Ridge to do so. Also, the Senior Center is comprised of people age 55 and older, therefore, that age group are part of the 1,000 members contributing taxes to the budget. In checking the US Census figures, they did not specifically categorize the senior population starting at age 65, as you stated. The graphs are simply broken down by different ages. They do not state that under age 5 are babies or 6 to 10 are children or 62 to 69 are older adults or 65 to 70 are seniors. Age groups are simply not catagorized or given names. You decided to give them names to make your point. Different institutions use their own criteria. AARP states that you are a senior and qualify for membership at age 50.
I am not comparing the amount spent on children in an attempt to shift attention from the $170,000 operating loss but to call attention to the fact that the Park District is short changing it's seniors by spending most of their funds on children.
You ask, why haven't I answered your question regarding, "Why do Senior Center Members think they deserve the roughly $170 handout each of them effectively gets from the taxpayers each year?" You jest!! Have you possibly not read the aforegoing comments in response to this question. If so, let's go over it one more time.
The Park District recreation budget is $7,604,649. According to the last published data, as of 7/2009, the population of Park Ridge is 36,806. We, therefore, have 13,212 senior citizens in Park Ridge, 35.9% of the population. Senior citizen contribute $2,703,069 of their hard earned dollars to that budget, of which they receive a shameful 2.25% in return. Each of the 1,000 members of the Senior Center have, therefore, paid $206.61 into the Park District budget. That completely covers the $170 amount that the Park District is so lavishly spending on the Senior Center Members.
Post a Comment