The Park District's Beach House...

In an e-mail sent to Executive Director Liza McElroy on September 20, 2012, Highland Park resident Daniel Shure asked the Park District of Highland Park (PDHP) a few simple questions:

·         Who lives in the building at Ravine Beach [Millard Park]?

·         How is it decided who lives in that building?

·         What is the lease or financial deal for those living there?”

He further indicated that he had previously asked this question through the general info e-mail address at the PDHP but had received no response. His e-mail also mentions that he had asked a couple of commissioners, as well as other PDHP employees, about the tenants and “no one seems to know who it is other than they assume it’s a park district employee.”

Ms McElroy provided an incomplete response on September 21 as follows:

“Hi Mr. Shure:   The Park District no longer rents the space at Ravine Beach.  The Park District is looking into demolishing this building and this is something that Park Board will address over the coming months.  Thanks for your inquiry. Liza” (McElroy to Shure) [emphasis added]

Desiring a complete and transparent response from Ms. McElroy, Shure sent an e-mail the next day pointing out the disparity that, even though she said the Park District no longer rents the space at Ravine Beach, people continue to live there:

“If the Park District no longer rents the space does that mean the couple that live there are living rent free?  They are still there. Who are they?  How were they chosen to live there?  And, what was the financial arrangement between the Park District and the couple?” (Shure to McElroy)

By this, Dan was indicating that he continued to see individuals who appeared to be residents there even after Ms. McElroy's initial reply.  

Not receiving a timely reply from Ms. McElroy, Shure sent another e-mail on September 25 as a reminder.  He sent yet another reminder on September 27, and, finally, on October 1, he sent a brief e-mail with one additional question:  “Is there a reason you are not answering?”

Executive Director McElroy ultimately replied to Shure’s September 22 e-mail on October 2 as follows:

"Hi Daniel:  I am sorry, I have been out of the office and am still catching up.  At this point, I have nothing further to add to my previous comments.  Liza” (McElroy to Shure) [emphasis added]

Dan is entitled to answers, and we should be interested in them. The PDHP needs to provide all relevant information about the rental of the Ravine Beach house -- how long people have been living in the Ravine Beach Field House, how the property was evaluated for rent, how much the rent was, whether it was paid, whether the tenant was an employee of the Park District or the City of Highland Park, etc.  At the very least, from a compliance and governance perspective, it is appropriate for Dan to have asked about the policies and practices for determining who could live at the beach and if they were paying full value for the enjoyment of living in what might be the only house directly on the beach in Highland Park. 

After reviewing the PDHP’s financial statements made available on the web, there doesn’t appear to be any distinct line item for rental of the Field House (although it would appreciated if the PDHP could point out where it is, if it exists).  Clearly it was reasonable for Shure to ask the Executive Director about the arrangements concerning the Ravine Beach Field House.  It is unacceptable to provide him with wholly inadequate and mostly non-responsive answers. Why no answers to simple questions?

Ironically, for those who have been following the PDHP’s roughshod treatment of more than 1000 residents who signed a petition to oppose placing another beach house on the Rosewood Beach shore, the Millard Park/Ravine Beach Field House was mentioned several times by residents in public meetings as an existing building on the lakefront that could serve as viable location for Park District programs in lieu of sacrificing the shoreline at Rosewood.  Apparently, Ravine Beach was fine as a lakefront home for unidentified lessors, most likely PDHP employees, perhaps for decades.  Now the PDHP has determined that it should now be demolished. 

Answers to Dan's questions?  Dan has been forced to take a path that is becoming increasingly too familiar with the PDHP.   On October 4, he filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to gain access to relevant records.  He has received no response to date.  If the information is noteworthy, it may be reported here.  Regardless, isn’t it time for the Park District of Highland Park to stop acting like a fiefdom and start being open and responsive to the residents who pay dearly for the PDHP?

The Park District of Highland Park’s (HPPD’s) organization chart, approved March 3, 2012, states that the CITIZENS OF Highland Park are at the tippy-top of the org chart.  Everyone at the PDHP ultimately reports up to the residents.  Even the executive director.   Looks good on paper, doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, that’s not the way it works at the Park District of Highland Park.

REAL, not "purported", SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO THE BEACH HOUSE

The Rosewood Beach Project.  Talk about Down the Drain in HP!  More than 1000 Highland Park voices have been unilaterally determined to be “obsolete ” by the Highland Park Park District (HPPD).  Starts me thinking about just who is really obsolete in HP…could it be the Park District Board of Commissioners?

The HPPD is scheduled to decide tonight (8/23/2012) on the Rosewood Beach Project that most notably includes the alleged Interpretive Center.*  While we won't know for several hours the HPPD Commissioners' decision, clearly they consider about 4% of HP’s population (and a much larger percentage of its voters) to be absolutely irrelevant and obsolete.

In a August 22, 2012 letter, the Executive Director of theHPPD, Liza McElroy, tells Amy Lohmolder (who submitted a letter on behalf of the Ravinia Neighbors Association – the RNA) that “…your email is inaccurate in describing the purported “significant” public opposition to the Rosewood Beach Project…The opposition petitions you cite address an obsolete and now-abandoned plan that is significantly different from that which the Park District of Highland Park is now considering…The vast majority of the signatures on the RNA’s petitions were obtained well before the Task Force presented even its preliminary recommendation to the public in May of 2012…”

I’ve news for Ms. McElroy and the HPPD Commissioners:  there isn’t “purported” significant public opposition, it is actual significant opposition, and sticking your head in the Rosewood Beach sand doesn't make it go away.   

Of course, Ms. McElroy is right about the sequencing of the RNA petition.  Can't address whether more or less of them were made previously or recently. Yes, the HPPD held all the cards very close to its vest until recently when the RNA gained enough prominence to ensure that the HPPD would make the process more  purportedly “transparent.”  By the way, the process has hardly been transparent -- the public meetings consist of residents expressing their frustration or their support and the HPPD Commissioners, staff and consultants not answering any questions.  Incredibly, pro forma financials were not presented until the last meeting and at the last minute -- no one in the room could really even ask a question of the financials being presented on the way in the door. Additionally, the RNA had to submit FOIA requests just to get basic information from the HPPD.  So much for transparency.

Ms. McElroy is absolutely wrong about any obsolescence of those signatures on the RNA petition. A unifying point for all the people who signed that petition, whenever they signed it, was and is that they were and are opposed to an "Interpretive Center" -- an unnecessary building on the beach of any size intended for class rooms, parties, rentals, etc., as well as any overbuilding on Rosewood.  The people who signed those petitions continue to be supportive of the admirable job the RNA has been doing of looking out for the best interests of all HP residents when it is clear that the HPPD isn’t.   

The HPPD can’t stick its head in the Rosewood Beach sand and pretend that the 1000+ people who signed the RNA petition and who oppose the beach house don’t really mean it anymore.  We did, we do.

The HPPD has all the signatures, phone numbers and, likely, e-mails for all signatures on the petition.  They certainly haven’t contacted me to determine whether I am still opposed to a Interpretive Center on the beach.  Whether it is 4000 sq. ft. or 1900 sq. ft., whether you call it the Interpretive Center or the beach house, my signature on the petition is still good as are all the rest (and, if there is an exception to that rule, it would be just that, an exception).  If we need a referendum concerning the beach house, bring it on!

We can assume that Ms. McElroy issued her letter with review and authorization by Scott Meyers, the President of the HPPD Board ofCommissioners.  Perhaps even full Board approval for such a sensitive issue was required. Or, if Ms. McElroy sent it on her own, shame on her!  In any event, let's hold the responsible people accountable.

Many in HP may not be familiar with your Park Board. In addition to Mr. Meyers, the Board of Park Commissioners include Cal Bernstein, Lori Flores Weisskopf, Elaine Waxman and Brian Kaplan.  Remember these names because they will likely be presented again for another election to the HPPD or elsewhere in the City or County.  Hold them accountable for their votes on the Rosewood Beach Project.  Remember that one of the best HP City Councilmen (ever!) lost an election in 2009 by only 10 votes.  Remember these names. Your 1000+ votes count.  Hold your Park Board Commissioners accountable for how they treat you, your neighbors, your Park District and your funds.  They are elected by us, and it is our job to ensure that the right people sit in the seats -- people who can be good stewards of our tax dollars.

In a few hours, in a forum designed to give the impression of a transparent process, the residents who still have the patience to show up will be afforded their last opportunity to speak before the HPPD.  As before, each one will be given 2 or 3 minutes to voice his concerns and then HPPD Commissioners will finally answer a the ultimate question.  Beach house or no beach house? Improvements or no improvements for Rosewood Beach?  Yes, President Scott Meyers told us at the last meeting that the beach house simply cannot be carved out of the plan (which may be procedurally correct on an initial vote, but a second vote could be called to adopt the compromise plan without a beach house). 

Regardless of the outcome, whether you are glad or not, please remember there are a few issues that go beyond the decision: 

• The HPPD has shown 1000+ residents extraordinary and lasting disrespect
• The process has been lacking in transparency
• The HPPD has been intransigent about the beach house from the outset, causing extreme divisiveness in the community and, as a result,
• There has been entirely too much focus on the Beach House, leaving the very real environmental issues concerning the habitat restoration and engineering project for the shoreline left largely unattended by all.

Shameful conduct by the HPPD.  

*********

*Regarding the alleged Interpretive Center, really, it appears that it was always intended to be more of a beach house for residents to rent for parties than a center to learn about the beach environment, because, after all, if you want to learn about the beach environment, you’re not sitting inside a building on the beach! This, of course, raises all sorts of questions about the good faith of the HPPD in dealing with residents and the government grantors.  At the first HPPD open meeting there were several people passionately supportive about the ability to bring students to the beach's "Interpretive Center", as if that were the primary purpose, and it isn’t.  The primary purpose is rentals.  Likely one of the reasons the HPPD finally flopped the sham name to the "Beach House."

Looking for that "commitment to transparency, accessibility and ethics..."

Sharing a letter sent to Mayor Nancy Rotering today -

March 15, 2012

Mayor Nancy R. Rotering
nrotering@cityhpil.com

SUBJECT: Termination of the Storm and Sanitary Program & Reimbursement to Residents

Dear Mayor Rotering,

Congratulations on completing the search for a new city manager. David Knapp appears to be an excellent choice and I look forward to welcoming him to Highland Park.

As you know, in addition to a good mayor, a knowledgeable and sound city manager can have a significant and positive impact on the city.  Unfortunately, the lasting legacy of our former city manager is that nearly 50 residents were seriously harmed financially with regard to an ill-conceived storm and sanitary sewer program.  There were several other better solutions to HP's storm sewer problems but he decided upon and promoted the very worst alternative, patently inequitable, discriminatory, and unfair, and the City Council accepted his proposal. 

Other communities in northern Illinois addressed their city's storm and sanitary sewer systems holistically and ensured that the entire community paid for any necessary updates to the infrastructure. Our former city manager and City Council devised a program to foist the entire infrastructure problem on individual homeowners in uncapped and undefined amounts possibly as high as $20,000+.   Nearly $250,000 was paid by about 50 of these unfortunate HP residents in 2008 -- an inequitable financial burden that the City has yet to foist upon all the other residents, yet was clearly ready to do so at the clip of 50+ homes per year had not the Ravinia Neighbors Association put up a fight.  You were a part of that fight, and that fight helped you to gain a seat as a Councilman which, in turn, helped enable you to succeed in your election as a mayoral candidate. 

To the best of my knowledge, this storm and sanitary program has yet to be terminated by the City Council under your leadership.  Yet, approximately 50 of our fellow residents and neighbors have borne the brunt of this shameful program.  It’s long overdue and time for the Mayor and Councilmen to do the right thing now -- reimburse all those who were coerced and forced to pay under threat of lien for this program.  Terminate the program and embark on a new program that is equitable, effective and cost efficient for the community.

As indicated in my blog, “Down the Drain in HP,” many of these homeowners were in their retirement years, some of them had to move or leave the community as a result.  I've had calls from widows, as well as families trying to pay for their children's college tuition, or just get by, and they are asking, "why is Mayor Rotering doing nothing about this? Why is the City of Highland Park not reimbursing us? They know this is wrong but the Mayor and the Councilmen just don't give a damn about us." The homes of some of these residents were foreclosed upon by the banks and some are no longer able to live in our community. I've informed those who are in touch with me that I wrote to the Mayor and all the City Councilmen but only Paul Frank has met with me, and Jim Kirsch had a phone conversation with me. That Steve Mandel is strongly opposed and the others are silent. I’ve told them that Paul Frank informed me that he is “sympathetic” but he doesn’t believe City Council can reimburse the residents because the City doesn’t want to set a precedent of [doing the right thing and] acknowledging they did the wrong thing and making it right ("because they have made so many other errors in the past, so this might mean other residents will want reimbursement, too, for other mistakes").  Is that the kind of reasoning that our mayor and City Council should abide?  In any event, the reimbursement requested by these residents is completely distinct from any other program in the City and would not set a precedent with regard to former programs.  However, the point is that we look to the Mayor and Councilmen to do the right thing, under any circumstance.

This is a sad, disgraceful story community story. In the face of the facts that have been disclosed to this current City Council, they cannot just say that this program was started by former City Council.  It is the current City Council’s job to resolve this and yet they show an egregious callousness to our City's residents and the principles of community and equitable treatment under the law, made worse in the economy that existed then and now.

Over the years, I have heard various councilmen indicate that the City of HP's program was the only way the work could be done.  No other viable alternatives existed or exist even today in their minds. This is likely because the former city manager didn't provide them with alternatives, and they didn’t and haven’t looked for any. It is clear that many of the Councilmen have never taken the time to read the detailed information in my blog or to seek the appropriate information from the City’s Public Works department.  Everyone in HP city government has failed to fix these problems and search for better answers.

So, I reached out to the Mayor of Downers Grove, MartinTully, and he provided me with the Downers Grove Sanitary District PrivateProperty Infiltration and Inflow Removal Program, a copy of which is attached with this e-mail.  Not only will you find a practical solution to the City of Highland Park's problem, you will see the overriding philosophy of Downers Grove:

“The financial assistance is being provided by the District to recognize that the removal of I/I from the sanitary sewer system benefits all users of the system and, therefore, the costs of this removal should be paid by all users as a system cost. The program also provides a mechanism to insure that the work is performed cost effectively and in a manner which protects the integrity of the sanitary sewer system.”

Downers Grove asks permission to go onto private property and the community – not individual residents -- pays for all the work need to be done to ensure that the storm sewers do not invade the sanitary sewers and vice versa.  The Mayor of Downers Grove informs me that the residents are very pleased with this system.  Isn’t it amazing that their community with a lower per capita income (according to Wikipedia) has the ability to provide more valuable services to their residents than Highland Park?  I would be glad to provide you with an introduction to Mayor Tully who has shown great leadership in his community and perhaps he has other valuable insights to share with our community.

As you’ll see, the Downers Grove program was determined by their Sanitary District.  So, I have copied Daniel Pierce on this correspondence.

 Quoting from your email today to Highland Park residents:

“Less than a year ago, four new Council members and a new Mayor came to City Hall. We ran for office out of a desire to serve our community, to make our City government more responsive to our residents and to use your money wisely.

We made a commitment to transparency, accessibility and ethics.”

I would like to see the Mayor and City Council walk the talk. So far, this community has seen the former and current mayors and councilmen turn their back on 50 residents that have been harmed by the City of Highland Park, a City Council that for too long has ignored this issue and has not been willing to do the right, fair, and just thing and reimburse residents who who were cherry-picked to bear the burden of an ill-conceived sanitary line program.

I would like to meet with you as soon as possible to seek a resolution of the storm and sanitary sewer program.  If possible, it would be great to meet with the new City Manager, too. We can meet jointly, or I can meet with David Knapp on my own.  Please provide me with several of the earliest possible dates to meet with David Knapp and you. I will do my best to arrange my schedule to accommodate yours.  Please advise me a few dates, and please schedule 1.5 hours for the meeting as there are considerable details that need to be discussed not only for resolution, but to also constructively move forward in way that’s a benefit to our entire community.

Frankly, it is very difficult for me to find the time to keep going back to City Council on this issue.  Running the City equitably is not my job.  Learning everything I now know about storm and sanitary sewers is not my job.  I’m not even one of the people whose homes were affected by this inequitable program.  Yet, I care about deeply about this City and look to City Council to fix this problem once and for all. 

Respectfully, and with best personal regards,

Debra

Remove the blight - Revise the HP Code on political election signs...

In anticipation of the election season, the City of HP posted information today regarding placement of political election signs.  This issue arises with each political season.  When will City Council take action to prevent this blight to our community? 

Unfortunately, many HP candidates consider signs to be a critical factor in their own personal success, which is why we've seen such an uptick in the number of signs during the last few elections for mayor and council.  So, it may be rather unlikely that City Council will revise the standards without your input.  Our visual enjoyment of the streets of HP, even in an election season, is really not in their self-interest, but it becomes relevant if you make it clear to your City Council what you need from them.  They know the signs are unsightly.  All you need to do is to remind them that they need to do what is good for our community and that you want them to overhaul the City Code on political signs now. This reflects our community's desire to limit waste and the number of unsightly signs to the greatest possible extent while, of course, preserving everyone's right to support political candidates.

Do you like driving through HP during an election season? Did you know there is no limit whatsoever on the number of campaign signs, as long as they are spaced more than 12" apart? They can be as large as 6 square feet and as high as 6 feet.  Nor is there a time limit on how long those signs can be up before or after an election.  Yes, political signs are an expression of free speech but the community can balance that with appropriate standards.  We have a right to enjoy our beautiful community. If your neighbor is a candidate or just politically passionate, you could be coming home every night for years to a yard that looks similar or worse than the image included in this posting!
 
Indeed, for several months during the last major city election, my neighbors and I had to gaze upon more than 30 election signs across the street for the Mayor and Michael Cohn (running for the NSSD 112 school board and who owns the fence to which all these posters were affixed).  After complaints to City Hall and several weeks, Mayor Rotering, kindly came out to the right of way on a cold day and in the deep snow to remove most of her signs (which, she informed me, had not been placed there by her but by a supporter). Candidate Cohn was completely indifferent to the complaints of his own neighbors and the signs remained up for many more weeks.

We have a Design Review Commission in the City of Highland Park.  We care about how our city looks, having an extensive sign code for businesses that reflects our expectations of a beautiful community.  Please contact the Mayor and City Council and tell them it is time to revise the standards for political signs. You can find their e-mail addresses here.

Summary of the HP standards concerning political signs is here.

Long term residents recognize that we didn't suffer for as many months and with as many signs as we do today.  Perhaps this level of eyesore in years gone by reflected the good judgment of the candidates and how much they treasured our community.  Today, we can't rely on good judgment, we need to rely on good standards.  Please contact City Hall and tell them they need to work on this.

The list of the residents forced by the City of HP to pay more than $237,000...

In response to yesterday's blog, we were contacted by several people who asked questions such as "how do I know whether my parents had to pay and need reimbursement?" and "how do I know whether, or how soon, the City of Highland Park will send me 'the letter' demanding payment?"  Additionally, another reader wanted to know who the people are that already paid, and how much.  In essence, the question is, who are the people who have already suffered this financial injury and are they friends of mine?

We can't say when the City of Highland Park will take the Sewer Program off of "hiatus" and put it on your street again. We can only say it remains a viable program, one that Councilman Mandel recently referred to as "huge success."    We haven't heard anything from Mayor Rotering or any other councilman to confirm they will propose to terminate the program "as is" and take another look to develop a program in which the financial burden for improving City infrastructure is placed on the City.  So, it appears more likely than not, at this time, that the Sewer Program will raise its ugly face sooner rather than later, and, individual residents will continue to bear the burden of improving the community's infrastructure.  

EVERYONE who has ever had their sanitary line rodded for tree roots, or who should have this done, is at risk of getting "the letter" that will most likely cost you a minimum of $4,500 for a line on a small lot to $20,000+ for larger properties with deeper lots.  The definition of a broken sanitary lateral line in need of repair, according to City Hall, is any line that has ever been rodded for tree roots or that has tree roots. Given the fact that Highland Park is a Tree City and our parkways are usually beautifully planted with trees, chances are that you will eventually receive "the letter."  When?  Probably when it is least convenient for you, such as when you're selling the house, or you're ready to pay your children's tuition, or you're just about to retire.

Of course, you can prevent this scenario by contacting Mayor Rotering and all the Councilmen and telling them in no uncertain terms that this must stop -- that the  City must pay for improvements to storm and sanitary sewer infrastructure.

The group first targeted in the Sewer Program is revealed in today's blog in the Invoice List the City of Highland Park provided to us in response to the FOIA request.  (Finally figured out a way to post some documents on this blog.  It will be too small to read initially, but if you click on the page, it will expand, with a further opportunity to zoom in on it.)

You'll see friends, neighbors, former neighbors, maybe family, and see how residents were chosen from various neighborhoods.  It's hard to know why an entire neighborhood wasn't addressed at any time -- perhaps it is easier to shove "the Code" down residents' throats if you don't concentrate them into a viable group.

In talking with some of the people on this list, we've found people who have said "why did they choose my home, but not the home down the street where they have to use special toilet paper because their sanitary line is really broken?"  They think the other home has been entirely skipped. To which we reply,  the neighbor just wasn't targeted in this wave.  The City will be back for them.

Did the City choose a handful of residences in one neighbor and then a handful of residents in another neighborhood, rather than just improving a single neighborhood at a time, in an effort to "divide and conquer" the residents?  We really don't know, as we haven't seen any documentation, nor has anyone interviewed City Hall about this.  Unfortunately, we suppose it is possible...perhaps time will tell.

The huge financial burden unfairly placed on Highland Park's older residents...

This blog isn't just about the Master Plan for Storm and Sanitary Sewers. We're talking about real people here -- the residents of Highland Park, adversely impacted by it.  It's about our neighbors, friends, parents, our greater family.  It is about about doing the right thing, and making changes in Highland Park that are good for everyone -- fair for everyone. It's about achieving equitable solutions for the community.  So, let's look at the 46-50 families targeted by the City as the first victims of the Sewer Program (merely on “hiatus”).  If you're new to this blog, this is an inequitable program that put the economic burden on individual residents to pay for improvements to the City of Highland Park's infrastructure -- while other communities, like Downers Grove and Naperville paid for similar programs from their city's coffers (see the AECOM report).

As you may recall, the City of Highland Park (in response to a FOIA request) provided us with an Invoice List of all the residents who were charged and paid HP for “repairs” to their sanitary lateral line in 2008 (the only year that the City actively implemented the Sewer Program). In trying to contact these people and confirm their addresses, we turned to www.whitepages.com.  This site delivers more information than most of us would like – it provided an age range for each search.  So, some informal demographics were gathered in this process, based on limited available information.

Approximately 50% of the people who have paid to date are or were 60 years of age or older.  Indeed, nearly 25% of them were over 70, and, we're sad to report at least two of them, aged 85+ years of age, have died since, leaving widows. 81% of them are older than 50 years of age.  So, let's just say that the targeted residents are in, or are rapidly approaching, their retirement years.  Everyone really needs the money they were forced to part with...and it remains insensitive for Mayor Belsky to claim that the program was put "on hiatus" because the economy took a bad turn.  Talk to any of the people who paid in 2008 and they will tell you the economy was bad when when they paid -- and nobody at City Hall cared.

It further appears that more than 15% of the people moved since paying the City, with two of them formal foreclosures, perhaps precipitated by being forced to pay the City of HP for “repairs” on their private property that they did not need. 

Several people called to thank me for my efforts, the stories they told painted a sad portrait of residents dealing with an unresponsive City Hall that refused to listen to the residents and demanded payments, claiming that the City Code required them to pay for this.  As reported in this blog previously, one of the residents told me distinctly, “They had my back up against a wall, what could I do, but pay?  But I didn’t think it was right.” 

 

A woman called and said she was a "late-in-life" mother, sending two children to college.  The $5000+ she paid is much needed.

Of course, there is the one individual (and you have to read through all the comments on the linked page to identify him) who believes the program is good, thinks he should have paid, thinks you should pay in the future, but (oh, by the way) wants his money back if the City agrees to reimbursement.  To him, we say, if you like paying for repairs to City infrastructure in the thousands of dollars, as opposed to paying a few dollars a year on your taxes, we should just let you remain happy! 

For the everyone else, the face of HP’s City Hall is that of a bully pushing around senior citizen residents, forcing them to pay for something they don’t need, and with money they do need in their retirement years.  “The Code requires you pay, or we will file an enforceable lien against your property.” What can the average resident do when City Hall is telling them this?

I've news for Ctiy Hall.   “The Code” does not require that residents use proprietary technology.  “The Code” does not require residents to use the contractor you select (and we’ll probably never know how Mr. Limardi’s office selected a single source provider, Performance Pipelining, over every other plumbing company in Highland Park, nor why this very same contractor ceased to do the work...).  Further, “the Code” does not require residents to sign an indemnification to protect the City's contractor or the City for the work done at your direction, or your neighbor for the work done by the City's contractor, and it doesn’t require you to fix a sanitary lateral line that isn’t broken and is functioning.  Of course, if City Hall would care to post on this blog "The Code" that requires this, go right ahead...go on record and try to justify the poor decisions of the past.

These residents were bullied and pushed around by City Hall.  City Hall needs to pays them back now, and if they don’t do it soon, with interest.   And, for those of you who haven’t faced this treatment yet, don't assume it isn't your problem. It’s in your personal interest to ensure that the program is taken off of “hiatus” immediately and put down.  If revived, don’t think they passed you by, just because you weren’t in the first wave.  Every house in HP has its sanitary lateral lines rodded from time to time.  They will be waiving “the Code” at you soon enough…

Is the new boss, the same as the old boss?

As readers know, on June 22, 2011, I wrote to Mayor Rotering and every City Councilman concerning repeated requests to reimburse approximately 45 residents for payments made for unnecessary repairs to their private property.  These residents paid the City under coercion, for a Sewer Program that is likely to be entirely revamped and/or discarded and which was very inequitably applied to these unlucky residents to their great financial distress.

While I would prefer to see more comments posted on this blog, and the ones posted, even this week, can be a bit difficult to find based on the Google template, you may be interested to know that more than several people have written and/or called the Mayor's office in the last several weeks to request reimbursement and to express their frustration at how they have been treated by the City.  I am starting to receive phone calls from these people who leave messages at my home complaining that no one at the City responds to them.  Not our new mayor, and none of our new and current councilmen.

So, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that nearly two months later I also haven't had a reply yet from anyone (unless an e-mail or letter has gone missing). Nor a phone call.  This should be very disappointing to all, not just me.  Resident raises serious and complicated issue to City Hall and nearly two full months pass with no response, no inquiry to learn more.   

Kinda looks like the old City Council.  In the words of Pete Townsend, “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”?  Hope not.  Wasn’t this last HP election about CHANGE?!

In fairness to Mayor Belsky, he always replied, eventually -- probably the amount of time it took Dave Limardi to consider it worthy of his time and to put it on his desk for reply (or to assign it to someone, followed by his and corporation counsel’s review). Then you'd get the "big official letter."  There was never any dialogue.  To actually pick up the phone and talk with a resident about a challenging and complicated issue -- well, that would be, let's just say, too personal for that administration.  And, evidently, it is the same for this one.  

Actually, I wasn’t hoping for a big official letter response.  With so many new people on City Council, I was hoping for a call – something along the lines of “I'm a new councilman and don’t know much about this issue but would like to get your perspective.”  I must have been dreaming…

So, today, I wrote everyone on City Council and requested a meeting with each, excluding Steve Mandel because it appears his mind is absolutely shut on this issue and no one likes to waste her time.  If the invitees agree to these meetings, it will be very time consuming for me, but when it comes to trying to right a wrong, sometimes one just has to make the time. LET'S NOT FORGET THAT VERY REAL PEOPLE WERE HARMED BY THE CITY ACTIONS.  Perhaps these meetings can be bundled, with more than one City Councilman at a time.  (I believe up to three members of City Council can be in the same room at the same time without triggering an official meeting, but they know these responsibilities better than I.)

My first response was extremely prompt and from Councilman JamesKirsch, whom I just now learned goes by “Jimmy.”  I really appreciated him responding so quickly to the direct request and we’re already scheduled to have a phone conference later this week.   Thank you, Jimmy!

We’ll see about the rest – I look forward to reporting on this endeavor further.  In spite of all, I remain hopeful that the current City Council might actually look at this issue anew.