Breaking News Orland Park: Letter from Trustee Brad O'Halloran on Ninety7Fifty "Mr. Mayor, I respectfully must disagree"

Letter from Trustee Brad O'Halloran on Ninety7fifty

Mr. Mayor, I respectfully must disagree.

I have been a Trustee in the Village of Orland Park for the past 18 years. While there have been many challenging issues during this time, none has had the potential economic impact on the Village’s finances to the degree the proposed “9750 On The Park” project will have. As such, it is the single biggest financial vote in 20 years. When I first became a trustee the Village’s overall debt was around  $18 million, today it is $79 million. The proposed 9750 project would almost double that debt to $144 million.  To put things in perspective, the 9750 project’s debt of $65 million is greater than the debt of the new police station, the Sportsplex, the new library, the new train station, the public works facility and the old police station renovation----COMBINED. Now that’s a big deal.

I received the final details of this deal in my weekly Village package on August 13th in the form of a 5 inch ring binder stuffed full of details. I’ve been trying to absorb them ever since. While it’s certainly true that I knew this project was in the works for quite some time, this was the first time I saw the final business terms and was given the third party report that analyzed the risk factors involved. In addition I always assumed there would be plenty of time for debate with public hearings and the traditional Village Committee process, prior to any final vote. Well, as we all now know the final vote is to occur at our next meeting on September 19th, after the public hearing this past Tuesday. So in addition to the statements I listened to on Monday, I’ve been soliciting my own input from the same neighbors, friends, former coaches and local business folk I’ve relied on for years and whose opinions I respect. And we’ve hit on some common themes.

1.)   This is no time for anyone to be doubling their amount of debt. If I wouldn’t do it as an individual or business, why would the Village ever consider it? If there is one common thread to the current problems in our state and country it is one thing, too much debt.

2.)   A partnership is just that. 50/50 or 60/40 or even 70/30, but 96/4, I don’t think so.

3.)   The Village has no business being in the Apartment business. If this is such a good idea then let the private sector have at it, but don’t risk my money by using public funds.

Of course there was a lot more banter, but those three were common to any discussion.

 So how did we get here today? Well, this project is perceived to be the linchpin of the Village’s downtown redevelopment. A vision the Mayor and this board have worked on for many years. A vision I must say I share and have supported to date. A vision that has been many, many years in the making. Unfortunately, I think with respect to the 9750 project maybe there’s been a little too much tunnel vision. Too much focus on the end result and the beautiful renderings and rosy projections and not enough focus on the economic uncertainty in both our state and country and the fact that these funds are the funds of our citizens. The same citizens that I have been so proud to represent for so many years. The same citizens that have entrusted me to represent them to the best of my ability.

The one thing I’ve always admired about the Village board and the Mayor is that we can disagree without being disagreeable. So in the end I guess I must concur with the folks I spoke with and the common sense input they offered and respectfully disagree with you Mr. Mayor and say no to the proposed financing of “9750 0n The Park “.           

                                          

                                                                   Sincerely,

                                                                                             Brad S. O’Halloran

                                                                                             Village Trustee                                                  

                                                                                             Finance Chairman

                                                                                             Village of Orland Park

Senator Mark Kirk’s Efforts to Weaken New Consumer Agency Bad for Illinois Consumers

For Immediate Release:                                             Press Inquires:

September 8^th, 2011                                                     Brian Imus, Illinois PIRG, 312-399-3834

                                                                                    brian@illinoispirg.org

Dory Rand, Woodstock Institute, 312-368-0310

drand@woodstockinst.org

Karen Harris, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, 312-263-3830

                                                                                    karenharris@povertylaw.org

Senator Mark Kirk’s Efforts to Weaken New Consumer Agency Bad for Illinois Consumers

The landmark Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently took over as the nation’s chief regulator of financial institution compliance with consumer laws – mortgages, credit cards and other bank loans, including overdraft fees. Despite strong public support for the new bureau, Illinois Senator Mark Kirk is one of just a few Senators who have taken several positions that would undermine and weaken the new consumer protection agency.

Illinois Senator Mark Kirk is one of 44 U.S. Senators to sign a letter to President Obama opposing any nominee to head the bureau until the bureau’s power is first weakened.  He also co-sponsored legislation that would weaken the new bureau and legislation that would completely repeal the Dodd-Frank Act, eliminating the new consumer protection bureau. He is one of only 6 Senators who have taken the extreme position of signing the letter and sponsoring both rollback bills.

“All three positions taken by Senator Kirk benefit Wall Street banks and the business-as-usual approach to regulating financial institutions that caused the economic mess we face today,” said Brian Imus, Director of Illinois PIRG.

The President nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, the current enforcement chief of the Bureau, as the CFPB’s first director. He’s already received strong support from Ohio papers and praise from the current Republican Attorney General of Ohio, Mike DeWine, who had defeated him. The Bureau will not have its full authority to protect consumers in the financial marketplace until a director is confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

“Despite signing a letter with other Senators opposing any nominee until the bureau is weakened, I hope Senator Kirk will evaluate Attorney General Cordray based on his qualifications,” said Dory Rand, president of Woodstock Institute. “Opposing any director for the new bureau, regardless of qualifications, isn’t in the interest of Illinois consumers.”

A recent poll shows that an overwhelming majority of likely voters both support a new consumer agency (74%) and want Wall Street held “accountable” (77%). 

“It’s critical that the Bureau has the ability to effectively enforce our financial protection laws. That’s why it’s important for Illinoisans to know where Senator Kirk stands,” said Karen Harris with the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. “We encourage Illinoisans to let Senator Kirk know that they want him to prevent the banking lobby from weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

#          #          #

For more information on how consumers will benefit from the CFPB, please read Ten Reasons We Need the CFPB. For information on the importance of confirming Richard Cordray, please download this fact sheet. 

test settings

I guess we know what the village of Orland Park's problem is ...

Orland Park Says it needs to get it's message out:the problem is their message is already out and the public doesn't like it.

The Village of Orland Park has two full-time communications people to help promote their events and agenda. Apparently, they're not very good, their political clout and pedigree not withstanding.

Don't get me wrong. I think communications consultants and employees are important to every government, After all, having spent 30 years as an award winning journalist with front line professional journalism experience under my belt, I am a communications consultant today. My job is to know not only how to present a message for a client, but also to whom. Who is the audience? And, what message is most effective. Comes from years of experience, folks.

But I have also learned that when a government has two full-time communications employees who were paid last year $142,768 -- and no doubt far more this year to issue press releases touting Mayor Dan McLaughlin and his agenda -- and the mayor declares that clearly the problem with the village is that it is not getting their communications message out very well so they have to hired a third communications consultant. Houston. We have a problem.

Now, communications isn't rocket science. So they hired a friend of mine, Lloyd Betourney -- I say that knowing that chances are in the small minds of some of the village officials, being my friend may not be an asset. Betourney heads up The Public Response Group which mostly does political campaigns but was brought on specifically to manage "reputation management" for Mayor McLaughlin and the Village.

I'm not sure which one has the reputation management problem at this point any more. (I love the village and I like McLaughlin -- he's a decent guy but we find ourselves on the wrong side of issues many times.)

The Public Response Group will only be paid about $49,500 for their 18 month contract to help the village get its reputation in order. So that brought the amount taxpayers are spending to manage communications (and the very related aspect of reputation management) to -- let's see, I went to the public schools where class length was far longer than what we have today in Chicago and even in the suburbs -- $192.276. Again, this Chicago Public Schools alumni can figure out that represents last year's total and my guess is the salaries this year for the "two" village relatives on the payroll is probably higher. So, for the sake of sensationalism, let's just say the village is already, now, paying about $200,000 for communications.

But apparently in the month since Betourney's Public Response Group was brought on, the village of Orland Park has decided to bring on yet another communications firm. Yes, another PR group to handle the issues probably being ruffled by the village's misguided plan to build luxury condominiums next to the Metra train station. (Sure. Wealthy people are going to move next to a Metra Train so they can get to work? I don't think so.)

The new fourth PR Firm being brought is in going to deal with surveys of the public to determine, as one village official explained, if things like snow removal and street cleaning were still relevant to residents.

I'm a little surprised that someone would ask that question. Of course, they were probably told what to say when asked by the three Communications employees and consultants who I am sure got together to figure out why that amount of money wasn't going to their pockets.

And by the way, how much with the village spend to hire the fourth communications consultant? We don't know. Maybe the village needs to hire another communications consultant to help them figure that out. They'll take bids and they will do it publicly.

Mayor McLaughlin and the "IT Team" headed by Trustee Jim "Sunshine" Dodge -- that's his favorite saying -- are probably just doing their best to try and figure out why their originally intended message hasn't gotten out. And maybe they want to know why the message of the luxury apartment complex they want to build using taxpayer money seems to be mired in public rejection. And oh, the public so does not want that Main Street Ninety7Fifty complex with the nifty little name.

They just don't understand. The problem is that their message HAS already gotten out and the problem is that the taxpayers in Orland Park understand it very well and they don't want it.

Wow. And no one had to pay me for that communications advice. I can just hear the commotion at the Village of Orland Park's new Communications Consultant Armory Offices and the $280,000 in salaried and consulting employees screaming, "Let's put out 5 press releases and see if we can spin this differently folks!"

Why not? It doesn't bother them how much the village has to spend on consulting, on luxury apartments and on PR spin. It's taxpayer money anyway.

-- Ray Hanania

Suburban Schools do more than Chicago Schools for their children

I was fascinated by the debate in Chicago over the length of time schools kids spend time in schools. There is no question that the big concern is teachers is their excessive salaries and their pensions, not the children. And that's sad. The fact is Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who is not right about much, is right about the schools. Children need to stay in the elementary school classrooms longer than the 5 hours or so they are there now. Emanuel wants to increase their time in school and that's a great idea.

The Chicago news media (Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times) are preoccupied with the subject. But the truth is they don't care about school children at all either. They care about selling newspapers. Even the TV media which slurps up sloppy seconds on news, follows the lead of the Tribune and the Sun-Times reporting only on Chicago's school dilemmas.

Well let me give some information that no one seems to care about.

Suburban schools started one week before Chicago's schools and will probably remain in class days longer than Chicago's schools.

Suburban children are in class more than 6 hours every day and there is nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, Emanuel is right. School children should be in class at least 6 hours but the Chicago Teacher's Union doesn't agree. The issue for them is salaries and wages and costs. It's not about the children. Teachers complain about their salaries but they get great salaries and great benefits. But they always want more.

Chicago's Mayor Emanuel should win this fight and force the kids to stay in school longer.

It may be different from some kids in High school. There, the children in junior and senior year may have to work to help their families and staying in school longer might be a costly burden for them. But that's easily resolved by giving those children permits to leave school early.

The point is, children should be in school all day and at least 6 hours or more. That's where they learn. And if teachers don't want to be teachers, maybe they should join the unemployment line and see what it's like being without a job.

They have great healthcare benefits that are far superior than anything their students get. So quit whining, teachers and start focusing on what's good for the students. Your union has done far more for you than you deserve, getting more benefits than the students. While your salaries have increased, school programs have been cut.

I wonder if they teach about all this in economic classes?

-- Ray Hanania

Orland Park: Main Street or Main Problem

I admit, I haven't spent a lot of time analyzing Mayor Dan McLaughlin's Main Street plan. And while I have confidence int he abilities of some of his advisers -- the Village Manager Paul Grimes for one has done a great job over the years and is an asset to the village -- I just can't fall in  love with this latest development plan.

It's called Main Street. Or "Ninety7Fifty on the Park." It's supposed to be the Park Place of Orland Park. It's supposed to attract the really rich, and I assume their money to Orland Park. It's supposed to be financed by the Village. Officials say it doesn't involve tax dollars but that's not really true. Every dollar that government spends is basically a tax dollar that comes out of our pockets. And that is the first red flag. Why is the village and McLaughlin using village funds to build an upscale apartment complex for the rich? Can't they afford to do it themselves?

I understand the argument. The developers want help to get it done. Every developer wants help to get their projects done but we don't help them all. And we certainly haven't helped developers to the extent that the village and Mayor McLaughlin want to help "Ninety7Five on the Park." That's a lot of money we're going to be floating for the developers. They say it will work. Maybe. And maybe not.

And who gets stuck with it? The taxpayers.

But I have a concept problem with the whole deal, besides legitimate concerns about the financing plan Mayor McLaughlin has developed for the developers.

To put it simply, the Village of Orland Park is going to put up $62 million to help build this project, expensive luxury apartments that will be bought by the wealthy -- I assume these are people who don't already live in Orland Park and have pots of gold stashed away in their 6,000 square foot homes that haven't fallen to the mortgage banker robber barons for foreclosure. 295 units of luxury apartments -- why not call them expensive condos? That are supposed to "anchor" the new Orland Park downtown. Downtown. My family fled Chicago specifically to get away from "downtown." Maybe Mayor McLaughlin has been working downtown too much to see the pitfalls of a downtown.

Anyway, seriously. Some rich dude with loads of cash is going to move to Orland Park to live in a luxury condominium which is supposed to be the anchor of a yet unbuilt "downtown?"

I don't think so.

Worse. They are going to drop how many hundreds of thousands in today's crappy real estate market where condos are the last to sell and the first to go in to foreclosure?

I don't think so.

And even worse. The idea that some rich dude is going to buy a luxury condominium apartment next to a train station -- the METRA train station?

I don't think so.

Didn't Tinley Park try to build a bunch of expensive condos near their train station and didn't that fall through specifically because rich people don't want to live near train stations?

We just finished an ugly debate a few years ago about giving seniors free CTA transportation because Gov. Quinn and others said that rich seniors shouldn't get free public transportation. They can pay for it. So some rich guy will millions is going to take the train from Orland Park's "downtown" where he moved to, in order to go to Chicago's "downtown" which everyone is trying to escape from?

I don't think so.

Mayor McLaughlin has a few good advisers. And he has a few goofs, like his buddy on the planning commission who has run-of-the-mouth disease on the Orland Park Patch hate board. Or the District 230 idiot who thinks she can be five things at one time, who also publishes here stupid comments on the Orland Patch hate board. (I love the Patch but I think its chat board is too filled with viciousness and hatred.)

I think there is a tinge of pre-election jitters involved here. McLaughlin knows that he is in for an election fight this next go around. The last few elections have been a breeze. The candidates were good people who couldn't get their acts together. But this next election, I think, the mayor is going to have a serious challenge. And I think he wants this to work so bad to help him get re-elected.

I could be wrong. But, I don't think so.

-- Ray Hanania

More on Flex Seal -- even the little they give you doesn't work

Many of my readers are familiar with my Flex Seal experience. This is one of the worst products I have ever purchased. It just doesn't work.

I bought two cans at an exorbitant price ($19.95 each) -- one can was actually free, but you had to pay the $19 processing and handling fee.  Sure!

Anyway, I figured, the concept sounded good. A spray that can help seal water leaks. I had one on a gutter. I used one can, it emptied out in seconds, that's how little product was in the 10 ounce can. Really? $19? Pathetic.

Still, I hoped that the rubber coating that it claimed to provide would help seal the leak. Both sides of the gutter, inside and out. And guess what? This week it rained. And the Flex Seal that prevents leaks, leaked. Yes, it leaked. Not only was it costly and way over-priced. It doesn't work.

I have the second precious can of Flex Seal. I could use that to cover about 12 inches of area. But what would be the point?

Here's my blog posts on Flex Seal. Click here to read the last entry.

Don't buy it. (I spend my money so you can save yours.)

-- Ray Hanania