State of the City

It would be nice if the city put its money where the mayor's mouth is and hold these events in Naperville.

Hold on to your wallets.

The most scary part of this speech was the fiscal irresponsibility of the City. The City has a $5 million problem this year, $11 million next year. They raised taxes 10% last year, 8% this year--much higher than the tax cap.

Layoffs were suppose to solve the problem. Yesterday, the mayor said that would save about $800,000. How is the City going to save the remaining $4.3 million this year and $10 million next year?

After 40 years of tax restraint, City taxes have been out of control in the last three years, far above inflation. We cannot afford any more taxes.

The Lisle Hilton? What a slap in the face to the developers who finally brought a luxury hotel to Naperville as well as all of the other high end hotels and restaurants that have invested in our community? What in the world are the directors of the NAPERVILLE Chamber of Commerce thinking?

Ok, I'm always the last on that seems to "get it" so I'm going to just trust them on this one and follow their example by spending my money in other towns from now on and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

The Police Department recently purchased two Quad-runners for use by our downtown beat officers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone know why we need Quad-runners for the police officers downtown? I copied this sentence from the State of the City address.

First bikes, next motorcycles, now Quad-runners, and soon Ped-Ways.

Why don't we get a barn and raise 12 horses so we can have mounted police patroling downtown?

What is wrong with old fashioned walking and running in a 3 block downtown area?

Let us keep our police physically fit and healthy.

Let us keep our city budget sound and balanced.

It puzzles me that in these very hard economic times, we can waste potentially 2 million in legal fees on the Fustenau Case, despite having an 11 million dollar budget deficit.

This case could have been settled initially for an apology and we would only have a 9 million dollar deficit we would be looking at.

Every little bit of less waste helps the taxpayer. Spending 2 million dollars on egos is just a waste no one can afford right now.

I observed in the downtown area and on Washington St. from the Harris Bank north to Edward Hospital south, city crews shoveling all the sidewalks instead of businesses and landlords.

One day I saw 3 city crews each consisting of 5 members shoveling these sidewalks.

In the rest of Naperville businesses, landlords, residents are required to do their own shoveling of sidewalks in addition to plowing their own parking lots. It seems unfair and a waste of taxpayer money that we should be shoveling sidewalks of downtown businesses at our residential expense. Many of them claim to be doing extremely well financially. If so, they should pay for their own shoveling as we do. Or they should do it themselves as many of us do. But to expect us taxpayers to pay for their shoveling is simply unfair especially in these turbulent economic times in which many of us lost our jobs, took pay-cuts, or lost annual bonuses.

It seems it should be enough that we built the downtown landlords parking decks mostly at our expense. If downtown businesses can not pay their own expenses, why have them. Why do we have to subsidize the downtown area to this extent especially in a bad economy while we are facing an 11 million dollar shortfall according to the Mayor's 10 page speech which I just got done reading?

Maybe Council Man Bob can tell us why all these subsidies that include shoveling sidewalks for downtown businesses and landlords are necessary. It is no wonder our taxes are so high in this town.

I too wonder how much of the city budget could be slashed if the businesses in downtown Naperville wiped their noses themselves instead of depending on city employees to do it for them... along with all the other benefits a business in downtown Naperville gets on the taxpayer's dime.

It kind of blows my mind that such a small area can suck up so much of the city's resources. I know they want to preserve the "small town feel" or whatever of the downtown area... But I don't think anyone is getting a "small town" vibe from night clubs and restaurant chains. If you look at the mosh pit of college kids fighting to get in to any bar in downtown Naperville, and the constant stream of cars being valet parked at restaurants, it is painfully obvious to me that businesses in the downtown Naperville area are the last ones in this town who need a hand out.

The free parking garages, free sidewalk shoveling, free security guards with police badges, and the numerous other benefits the taxpayers pay for need to be cut! Naperville taxes need to be brought back down to the realm of reality, letting businesses in the downtown area wipe their own noses is a good start.

Right on, Rambo! I couldn't agree more. Maybe the city shouldn't feel the need to pamper these businesses at the taxpayers' expense.
And why would it be confined to the downtown area instead of businesses all over Naperville? Is their business more valuable than that of those on Ogden Avenue, 75th Street, Route 59, Washington, Gartner, etc?

Re Shoveling Sidewalks 1/27 @ 12:22p:

Downtown businesses pay into a Special Service Area, which funds downtown maintenance activities. This SSA is paid by the property owner based upon the assessed value of the property. So in effect property owners are paying city employees to remove snow.

The City of Naperville has avoided confronting the pension system head on. I believe it is getting worse year by year and not better.

The State of Illinois and the City of Chicago are in essence bankrupt living on borrowed time and borrowed money.

At some point our city officials have to address this serious problem that gets worse and worse each year.

It has been suggested that current employees be grandfathered since promises were made to them. But new hirees should be brought in under new criteria and conditions. While they city can not control the unafforadable 75% pension payouts imposed by the state, by reducing starting salaries by one third they can reduce pension pay-outs by one third.

That is something small that the city can do until the state gets its act together or files for bankruptcy or Obama bails it out.

Yesterday, alone, 72,000 employees lost their jobs nationwide. In the last 13 months over 3,090,000 Americans lost their jobs. These employees would die to have a police officer or fire fighter position for 40k a year instead of 60k a year. My point is when the need arises why not hire from this pool of unemployed people that are taking jobs as Wal-Mart greeters, McDonald hamburger flippers, or for the most part staying home as even those jobs are not readily available.

As Circuit City closes it 565 stores in the coming months, another 102,000 unempoloyed workers will hit the market. It will become very cheap to hire labor with all this massive unemployemnt nationwide.

The City of Naperville needs to revisit its starting wages for new employees and benefits in lieu of the new job market and high unemployment. There is a new reality out there and the city needs to revise all its starting salaries for new employees. Redcuing wages of new employees by one third will go a long way towards helping us balance our budget once again.

Taxes will be reduced with lower wages for new hirees over time. Many taxpayers in Naperville are looking for relief. I am sure many of the 72,000 who lost their jobs yesterday live in Naperville and would like to be able to afford their home while living on unemployment compensation and their rainy day fund if they have one.

Re K-Rambo on 1/27 @ 1:14p

Downtown parking isn't quite "free". Downtown property owners have been paying into another SSA, which has funded a portion of each parking deck's construction. When built in the early-1980s, the Chicago Ave parking deck was a 50-50 split between property owners and the city. Other parking decks have been a two-thirds/one-third split, with the city paying the 1/3. Last year, the state passed a special law that allowed Naperville to charge a special sales tax on downtown restaurant charges. The City Council approved that 1.5% downtown restaurant sales tax last year. The theory behind this whole funding model is that downtown property owners should pay some via the SSA to account for a baseline amount of parking use, restaurant patrons should pay some via the 1.5% sales tax to account for their more intense use of parking decks, and city residents should pay some because having a vital downtown with adequate parking enhances the entire city's quality of life and property values. (Don't blame me for how this model evolved because it's been 25 years in the making and I've only been on the Council for 2 years!!)

While most of us have to live with snow piles in our yards, on our streets, in parking lots, in front of our businesses, in downtown Naperville tractors work day and night until all the snow is relocated out of the downtown at mostly residential taxpayer expense. No wonder the city is broke despite taxes being high.

Why is the downtown so special? Why does the downtown get special privileges at taxpayer expense?

It is mingboggling that we are willing to build endless free parking garages downtown that we have to subsidize, but are unwilling to build one parking deck at the train station that the communters would be happy to pay fees to use.

I personally don't believe the survey that stated 93% of the residents are happy with the performance of the city. Since I believe the city performed the survey, I am willing to guess it was rigged. Good way to get re-elected or retain your employment by telling the residents everyone is satisified with our performance.

I bet if the Naperville Sun, which is much more credible than the City of Naperville, ran a survey to see how many of us are satisfied with the city's performance it would never get a 93% satisfaction rating.

I wonder why any new candidates are running for office with such a high satisfaction rating. What change could they bring? Do we want them to bring any change since we are almost all satisfied?

I encourage Host Chris to run a competing online survey with a simple yes or no regarding satisfaction and have us vote. I will guarantee that it would never be 93% satisfaction. It would prove that the city survey was rigged by city officials to get the answers they wanted or desired. Also, one has to wonder how many surveys were thrown in the garbage to arrive at this 93% satisfaction rating?

Many years ago, I recall that magazine company, Publishers Clearinghouse, that was running a lottery for the $10 million Grand Prize, threw all the entries away with no subscripitions directly in the landfill, while disclosing everyone is treated equal whether they subscribe or don't subscribe. Could the city be involved in similar shenanigans? Just aksing. Not accusing.

Fortunately, a TV reporter at the time was able to go the landfill and video tape the millions of entries that were thrown out. Too bad someone did not check the local landfill for all the surveys the City of Naperville may have disposed.

CM Bob,

Since the majority of the people who use downtown are Naperville residents, this 1.5% additional sales tax is simply another tax on residents. Another burden, if you will, on the residents.

If you truly want to tax the landlords you charge them through property taxes. This 1.5% sales tax is not a taxation of the businesses downtown. It is another tax against the residents. Very unfair!

We as taxpayers should not have to subsidize one cent of downtown parking. As a blogger said before me there appears to be lines of college kids trying to booze it up at the bars and non-stop valet cars lined up for the ritzy restaurants.

You or others on the council recently approved valet parking for Jillys and than Sullivans. They claimed they were busy and needed to provide better service. Well, if they are so busy let them pay for these parking decks. Why do we need to subsidize them? Personally, I think they are taking advantage of a city council that they perceive as naive and gullible.

Here they charge their patrons 7-10 dollars to park their cars-not in lots they own-but lots that the taxpayers own. May I ask you what percentage of this fee the city gets to defray the cost of these massive parking structures. Let me guess. Zero!

While intentional or unintentional, the city council continues to screw the taxpayers of this town. When will it end. With this election or the next election or never.

Parking Fiasco,

There is no such thing as a free lunch or free parking. We the people will end up paying for it no what matter what model you consider.

-JQP

John Q. Public,

I have to agree with you. "We the people will end up paying for it" especially under this city council.

I guess there is nothing we can do about it since we elected them.

Are there any new candidates that will make the landlords and businesses pay for these parking decks out of their SUBSIDIZED PROFITS???

If there are any such candidates running for city council, let me know and I will vote for you. I will also ask my extended family, my friends, my neighbors and my co-workers to vote for you. I am sure others would do the same.

By Experienced on January 26, 2009 10:56 PM
It would be nice if the city put its money where the mayor's mouth is and hold these events in Naperville.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I am shocked that the City of Naperville and Naperville Chamber of Commerce would ask us to spend our money in Naperville and then spend it in Lisle.

What hypocrits?

I think every business owner who truly cares about Naperville should drop their membership with the Naperville Chamber of Commerce as a form of protest for one year. There are many decent places in Naperville that could comfortably accomodate 400 people. One being the Holiday Inn on Naper Blvd. by the tollway.

I also think the Naperville Sun should take a stand on this hypocrisy. Embarrass the city and chamber by running an Editorial on the Opinion Page and they would be unlikey to act so irresponsibly and recklessly next time. You can not preach what you do not practice. No one has respect for hypocrits.

CM Bob,
Please, tell us the N,S,E & W boundries on the downtown SSA that you referred to in your posts (01/27/09 609pm and 01/27/09 630pm.

Remember, East St. Louis was an All American City in 1959 (a distinction Naperville could NOT achieve) and was a disaster by 1989.

That is what mismanagement breeds.

Taxes in Naperville are out of control and action must be taken to roll them back. Due to our outrageous taxes, senior citizens can no longer afford to live in Naperville. The money wasted by our politicians is a disgrace. Citizens must take action to ensure all new people are put into government that reflects the will of the people. Our current city council has proven it doesn’t represent us.

The latest State of the City address by the Mayor of Naperville represents the attitude of the City of Naperville, the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Mayor himself taken to the logical extreme.

The content of the address is not so much an issue as the where and how the address takes place. The following observations should be a rallying cry for those opposed to the outrageous behavior of Naperville businesses and government.

It is my opinion that the State of the City address for the City of Naperville should be a free and open event. The taxpaying citizens of Naperville should be allowed to attend the address without cost (within the physical constraints of the venue). Instead, a Naperville taxpayer must pay additional dollars to see their Mayor talking about the state of their City.

I would suggest that the State of the City address for any City be held in the City in question. Imagine the people of Chicago being told they had to travel to Evanston or Oak Park or Calumet City to hear their Mayor speak about the state of their City. But somehow the State of the City address for the City of Naperville ended up in Lisle.

I further suggest that an official address by the Mayor of any City should at least be organized and staged by the staff of that City. Or at the very least be under the control of City staff if an outside, but hopefully local, contractor must be engaged for AV. It should never be organized and staged by any political lobbying group with a political agenda. Imagine the US State of the Union address being put on by organizations that lobby the government or control PAC funds that go to Washington politicians. But the City of Naperville’s State of the City address is organized and staged by, the lobbying and PAC money organization, the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce. The appearance of impropriety is enormous.

I cannot think of how the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, the Mayor, and the businesses that support both of these, can show any higher contempt for the citizens and taxpayers of the City of Naperville.

I have been living in town for 45 years and never heard of a State of the Union address until after it was delivered. I guees, if you are not a businessman in town and a member of the Chamber of Commerce, you are not welcome to this event.

Why is this event not held in the new NCC Auditorium that can seat over 600 and has great acoustics as the Mayor noted in his speech. Why can't the average Joe have a chance to attend one of these sessions?

I still can't get over how our Mayor and Chamber preach to stay in Naperville and shop Naperville in these rough economic times and yet they end up in Lisle. It is completely mindboggling. No wonder everyone on the city council and on the city staff except for CM Bob stay away from this blog site. How would they explain their actions? Usually if you are guilty you are advised by your attorney to keep your lips sealed. The city is guilty of not practicing what they preach.

How could they ever explain their actions...their hypocrisy?

I hate to put any pressure on CM Bob but I wish he could explain to us how the Mayor and Chamber preach Naperville but ends up spending money in a Lisle Hotel. They owe us at the minimum an apology and an assurance there will be no repeat of this irresponsibility.

Maybe real estate taxes are so high in Naperville that no hotel in Naperville could compete with a Lisle hotel for the venue. If that is the case let us work on reducing taxes in Naperville. Many suggestions have been made by bloggers for nearly 3 years on ways to reduce taxes. Is anyone listening???

By Parking Fiasco on January 27, 2009 9:38 PM

CM Bob,

Since the majority of the people who use downtown are Naperville residents, this 1.5% additional sales tax is simply another tax on residents. Another burden, if you will, on the residents.

-------------------------------------------

Actually, something like 60%+ of the people coming to the downtown, the restaurants in particular, are from outside of Naperville. The 1.5% is effectively a parking meter without the meters, meter maids etc etc...

CM Bob should have access to the exact numbers.

The special sales tax was a giant step in the right direction.

Now lets build more parking somewhere other then the Nichols Library and we can get the second half right.

Anon,

1. I agree we don't need to convert Nichols Library into an unsightly parking deck.

2. Charging a 9.75% in sales tax which includes this 1.5% chases out of town customers away since they have other options such as Oak Brook or Aurora. Since this new tax, businesses downtown have been suffering. Of course the economy is the major part of the reason but these outrageous sales taxes don't help. By the time you pay this almost 10% sales tax and tip 20%, your 100 dollar bill becomes 130 dollars very quickly. It all adds up.

3. We don't need any more parking. We have a new garage almost completed, and with the serious decline in business and the numerous vacancies downtown, what is the purpose of more parking? If we have a parking crisis once a month, shoppers can go to City Hall or walk from the beach. It is great exercise in a country that is now 70% overweight or obese.

4. Do you realize that the Nichols parking deck was going to cost 19.9 million dollars not counting the land? Are you willing to pay for this from your real estate taxes?

5. The 1.5% contributes only a tiny portion to these decks. You may be able to maintain them with 1.5% sales tax but you could never build them or finance them with a 1.5% sales tax. Don't let the City Officials fool you with regards to who is paying for what in this town. The bottom line is the residents of Naperville are greatly subsidizing downtown and it should be the other way around.

On why the Mayor's State of the City luncheon was held at the Lisle Hilton:

(1) The Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce hosts the luncheon and considers it to be a Chamber event to which the Mayor is invited to speak. The Chamber frequently points out that its name is not the Naperville Chamber of Commerce, but the Naperville AREA Chamber of Commerce, with a membership that extends beyond the city's borders. So the Chamber considered this location to be within its service area. (BTW: I'm a Chamber member and have an office in Chicago.)

(2) The Holiday Inn Select, the site of last year's luncheon, has been planning to renovate its banquet area but I understand that's been delayed because of the scarcity of construction financing. There really isn't any other banquet space in Naperville that could accommodate the number who attend this event. The Chamber probably had to reserve the space for this year's event months ago when the availability of the Holiday Inn Select was uncertain.

By Why Chase Customers Away on January 28, 2009 9:54 PM

CM BOB,

Chase makes a good point which has been made before.

Since the Beach is closed 9 months a year, why not use it for valet parking in the evenings and allow owners and employees to park there during the day? A small buss could run loops in the downtown area perhaps making a circle connecting the train station and hospital? A school bus? A 15 minute figure 8 loop that passes the Beach and Downtown twice?

Any reason Valet parking can't use the lots at North or Central High Schools at night when there are no games? During the summer when the Beach and baseball diamond are busy, the two High School lots are empty. A lot cheaper than building a new deck. I see no problem with heated and AC construction trailer being parked at the beach in the winter and high school in the summer for the valet service as long as it is presentable.

Your thoughts?

Anonymous,

While your remarks are well intentioned, I doubt anyone would have to even use the beach parking lot. There are so many parking spots before that which can be found vacant all year long. One example is the Park District parking lot kitty corner from the library which is always empty and much closer than the beach.

Since we may need to resort to beach parking only once or twice a year, there is no reason to waste too much money on buses or heated construction trailers. Again, let the people walk a little and become fit. They will live longer.

I have never personally struggled to find parking in downtown Naperville....not once despite going there frequently and often.

Restaurants are half full these days on Fridays and Saturdays. Let us implode a garage and build some apartment buildings so we can full the restaurants. Landlords should be required to build underground or roof parking as we see in Chicago. Here we subsidize the downtown landlords and their parking needs as they appear to be very close to city officials.

City officials can play with and manipulate the numbers as they please. But everyone in this town knows the residents are SUBSIDIZING downtown from residential real estate taxes while landlords pay petty amounts for public consumption. One of the major landlords downtown is worth over a 100 million dollars. And the residential taxpayers are subsidizing his wealth. This landlord is getter richer and richer at the expense of the struggling residential homeowner.

I am tired of bailing the rich and famous. The Fed does it on a national level and the city does it on a local level.

Can you imagine the Promenade Building owners felt it was too expensive to build underground parking but felt it was NOT too expensive to pass it on to the residential homeowners? And the city council fell for the bait and exempted them from parking requirements. That place must need 500 parking spots alone....and does not have a SINGLE SPOT. Unbelievable! Only in Naperville! Maybe we have "pay to play" in this town that were are not aware of.

Councilman Bob-

Thank you for addressing a few of the observations in my previous post. I do have a few further questions based on your comments:

(1) I seem to remember that the State of the City address was held in the Council Chambers at City Hall at one time. Do you recall if this was still considered a Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce event then or was it at that time an actual city sponsored event.

Also, both The Sun and Daily Herald newspapers refer to this event as the “14th annual State of the City address”. Both papers are also clear that the event is hosted by the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce. However I am sure you could understand how someone, not completely versed in the technicalities and subtleties of “Naperville Chamber” versus “Naperville Area Chamber” and how an event described as the “14th annual State of the City address” is not really an official address by the Mayor but rather George Pradel just talking at a luncheon in Lisle to a bunch of business people from the surrounding areas, could be confused by the way in which the event was reported on by the media. My take-away was that this was an official address by the Mayor of The City of Naperville and I consider myself to be at least a little media savvy.

(2) With all due respect Councilman, I find it difficult to believe that there is not another space in Naperville capable of holding 400 people. Of course I have not made a personal study of this as I have never had the need to accommodate so many people. However just a cursory look at the City of Naperville’s own official government website I found: 95th Street Library – Capacity 355, North Central College Pfeiffer Hall – Capacity 1055, Wentz Concert Hall – Capacity 609, and the aforementioned Holiday Inn Select – Capacity 900.

However this is all attempted to be made moot by the fact that this is not an official City of Naperville event but a Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce paid monthly general membership luncheon where George Pradel was asked to speak. This attempt is made despite:

(1) The similarity in name to the annual “State of the Union” address which is clearly a government sponsored and paid for event

(2) The similarity in name to other “State of the City” addresses that are sponsored and paid for by the other local governments around the area and country

(3) The fact that the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce itself describes the event as The Annual 'State of the City' address

(4) The fact that the official City of Naperville government website contains the entire text of George Pradel’s speech at the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce paid monthly general membership luncheon, giving the speech the authority of an official City of Naperville sponsored address.

(5) The fact that the official City of Naperville government website makes no mention of the fact that this speech is in actuality a Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce paid monthly general membership luncheon talk.

(6) The first lines of the actual speech are “Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you all for gathering here today as I deliver my 14th State of the City”.

I must confess that I remain appalled at the level of insensitivity shown by the City of Naperville and the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce towards the citizens and taxpayers of the City of Naperville. I believe strongly that there should be as much separation between business and state as there is between church and state. The appearance of impropriety remains enormous.

CM Bob,

Again, please, tell us the N,S,E & W boundries on the downtown SSA that you referred to in your posts (01/27/09 609pm and 01/27/09 630pm.)

Thank you.

Re Paying Attention 1/30 @ 2:22p:

The boundaries for the downtown parking SSA #21 snake around, but they extend to Franklin Ave on the north, Aurora Ave on the south, Court St on the east, and Eagle St on the west. A map showing the SSA #21 boundaries is accessible on a slide (#10) in a PowerPoint presentation on the City's website, which I got to by searching "SSA" and clicking on the first result.

The boundaries for the downtown maintenance SSA #22 are roughly the same as for SSA #21, but slightly more contracted. The boundaries for SSA #22 are also shown on that slide.

The boundaries for the 1.5% downtown food & beverage tax are roughly Douglas St on the north, Aurora Ave on the south, Ellsworth St on the east, and Eagle St on the West. The actual map is accessible on the City's website: http://www.naperville.il.us/emplibrary/FoodBevDowntownBoundaryMap.pdf.

If you're having problems accessing these maps, email me at fieselerr@naperville.il.us and I'll attach them to a reply.

Councilman Bob,

Is it true that the residents of Naperville subsidize the downtown district and if so, to what extent?

Aren't businesses suppose to pay their own and FULL way in Naperville as in the rest of the USA?

Why are the owners of the Promenade Building exempt from building parking undergroud or on their roof as in Chicago?

I understand they are expanding their building by 2010 with no provisions for parking. It is well known the owners of this building are also the owners of the Barnes and Noble building and are very wealthy. Why are we subsidizing them? Why are we acting like the Feds bailing everyone out? I mean the Feds bail out Wall Street companies and they turn around and give their employees multimillion dollar bonuses for bankrupting their companies. Only in America!

Let us be Naperville and not corrupt and stupid like the USA government.

Re PBS 1/31 @ 2:40p:

I'll give you my understanding about developer subsidies even though I confess not to know all the intricacies, but I'm learning.

When a developer wants to put up a new building in the downtown, they become subject to the usual property owner obligations, like annual property taxes, special service area taxes (#21 for downtown parking and #22 for downtown maintenance discussed above), retail sales taxes including the 1% citywide culture tax, and the 1.5% downtown restaurant tax. New building developers also pay impact fees, the most relevant in the downtown being parking and stormwater. If a developer doesn't wish to provide its own parking requirements (there are standards for how many spaces are required for each type of business) a fee-in-lieu needs to be paid to have the city provide parking for the development.

How to calculate the amount of the parking fee-in-lieu has evolved over the years; the present formula is set out in the Municipal Code (go to www.naperville.il.us, click on Government, then click on Municipal Code, then search on "fee in lieu parking"). There's also a stormwater fee-in-lieu if a developer doesn't wish to provide stormwater detention on the property.

In the case of the Promenade and its upcoming expansion, BBM, Inc. is the developer; it's president is Dwight Yackley, who I've known for a long time, well before I was elected to the Council. I can vouch for Dwight's integrity and ethics. The Barnes & Noble building on Washington & Chicago is also a BBM development.

For the Barnes & Noble project, I understand that the parking fee-in-lieu was around $100K. I don't know what the fee was for the Promenade, but we can assume it was significantly greater. In the meantime, the fee-in-lieu formula was revised upward to account for more recent parking deck construction costs. With the upcoming Promenade expansion, the fee-in-lieu calculated out at somewhere around $1.2M under the new formula. BBM made its case for why imposing the new formula in full would harm the viability of the project, and the fee was eventually negotiated down to around $400K.

So, yes, that fee-in-lieu reduction could be considered a subsidy. The question then becomes whether there are enough offsetting benefits from the project to merit the reduction. I concluded there were, which is why

Councilman Bob on January 31, 2009 11:07 PM

_____

CB, I wonder if you know that the same person who use to be the 300-500 Napergatians (by their count) was actually one person "outed" by host Chris? This person now uses "clever" terms to post again and, IMHO, is the same person pestering you here.

As for the topic - the Naperville model for the most part works. Impact fees and fee-in-lieu are viable and work when the economy is growing. We are currently in a difficult economic time that in a few years (I hope) will be overcome. Please keep up the good work and stay the course.

Councilman Bob,

I don't know how anyone can thank you enough for the honesty and transparency you offer to Napervillians.

Well, if the fee-in-lieu is being reduced by 67%, than the taxpayers are subsidizing 67% of the parking needs of the Promenade expansion. Just because BBM states it will hurt the viability of the project and throws some numbers around, it does not mean they would not build, if the city did not give this $800,000 subsidy to a man worth over a 100 million dollars.

Dwight Yackley was able to buy all the homes on the entire block for just about whatever their owners wanted and demolished them. The man has money. In the original Promenade he was asking for 50 dollars a square foot in rent for his retail space on the ground floor and getting it. He only has one vacancy that being the former Acorn store. He has very few vacancies on the 2nd and 3rd floors.

His former 2 buildings were extremely viable. More so because we subsidized them. Now he wants his 3rd building or an expansion again subsidized to the tune of $800,000 and that assumes the fee-in-lieu was a full cost for parking. I doubt that it was.

An acre in downtown Naperville in my opinion is worth 5 million dollars. Two acres which can give you 250 parking spots are worth 10,000,000 without accounting for the cost of blacktop needed to surface this land for parking. He needs at least 2 acres for this large expansion he is undertaking since it will be a 3 story builidng. We were already subsidizing him to the tune of $8.8 million for parking. Now we agree to subsidize him to the tune of 9.6 million.

The library deck is budgeted for 20,000,000 not factoring in the cost of land. If you get 500 spots for this 20 million, that is a cost of 40,000 per parking spot not including land. So if this guy needs 250 spots, that is 10,000,000 dollars. This is just an alternative way to compute the cost of parking and we pretty much obtain the same anwser. How did the city come up with 1.2 million dollars for a fee-in-lieu of parking? That is less than one tenth of the price if you factor in cost of land and this one tenth of a fair price is reduced by two-thirds. Thus the Promenade expansion is paying 1/30th of what it should pay because our city council has chosen to subsidize it blindly. I have to wonder if Bill Brestal was his lawyer and once again pulled the wool over the eyes of our city council as he has done so many times in the past. He is a well known bluffer that can strip you naked if you allow him.

Mr. Yackley is suckering the taxpayers with his whining about viability. I simply don't buy it. If he can not afford his already subsidized fee-in-lieu, he simply should not be building.

I think the city council should be worried about the homeowners and whether this waiver of a very reasonable fee-in-lieu is affordable to the struggling homeower of which nearly 10% have lost their jobs in this vicious econonmy.

Personally, I feel the city council is getting away with subsidizing the rich and famous, because most Napervillians are sleeping. They don't want to be involved. They want to trust their city council blindly. There is no Napergate Man to wake them up. And the Naperville Sun does not have the resources, money or talent to question these enormous subsidies.

It seems like your letter got cut but you were going to say you voted for the project. I respect your vote but I think you are voting to subsidize the rich and famous and those with influence. You don't seem that kind of person Councilman Bob, so I have to wonder why you would unecessarily subsidize a man worth over a 100 million at the expense of ordinary taxpayers?

If BBM, Inc had not been very viable, they would not keep coming back and building more structures. They are just trying to squeeze the taxpayers and apparently they have a friendly and listening ear with the city council.

And by reducing his fee-in-lieu by two thirds, you pretty much set a precendent. Every developer is going to come and ask for a 67% reduction and claim otherwise his project will not be viable. You will be forced to grant it and once again the residential taxpayer pays up the wazoo! Where does it all end Councilman Bob?

Looks like I need to finish my post from last night:

I concluded there were [offsetting benefits to reducing the parking fee], which is why I voted in favor of reducing the fee-in-lieu to $400K for the Promenade expansion.

So you can see that with downtown development, there is always an issue of whether and to what extent the City should agree to subsidize, or at least be amenable to reductions in by-the-book impact fees. To approve those reductions requires a belief that a project that's good for the downtown is good for the entire City in terms of quality of life and property values, as I've said before. We can debate whether that's true or not, but I think it is, provided the developer has acted responsibly.

PS: Thx for the advice on pestering, Anon 2/1 @ 12:43a, but I thought the topic was worth discussing regardless of whether it was a set-up, which I kinda suspected anyway.

Councilman Bob,
Thanks very much for your kind and respectable comments that the topic is worth discussing. I assure you asking questions from a City Councilman is not a set up. No legitimate question should be considered a set-up. Unless, of course someone has something to hide which I believe is not your case since you have always been transparent and brutally honest with the taxpayers who elected you.

Charging the Promenade Expansion 400k for parking is beyond comprehesnion. Based on the library deck not including land, one parking spot cost 40,000 dollars to build. Thus the Promenade Expansion which will be 3 stories high and occupies 2 half blocks is only paying for 10 parking spots. That really is unbelievable. A restaurant that occupies 1000 sq. ft. is required to have 10 parking spots alone according to city code. We have a large building with possibly 10 retail stores and 100,000 sq. ft. of total space only required to pay for 10 parking spots. How ludicrous is that Councilman Bob? What are your thoughts Moderator Chris?

The city was already subsidizing the Promenade Expansion extensively when they required them to pay $1.2 million which would buy 30 parking spots not including the price of the land. Factor in the price of land and in essence they were only paying for 20 parking spots. For this huge building!

As I stated before in my opinion this expansion requires at a minimum 250 parking spots. If it is a 100,000 sq. ft. building without restaurants, according to city code it would be required to have 4 spots per 1000 sq. ft. or 400 spots. If this is the case, the Promenade Expansion should pay $16,000,000 for these 400 spots based on the library deck cost NOT including the cost of land again. Yes, this is an outrageous number but parking downtown is costly to build. The numbers I am using are not numbers I pulled out of a rabbit's hat. They are numbers provided by the City of Naperville and published by the Naperville Sun. I assume both sources are credible. I am sure the Moderator can verify my numbers from old articles at his disposal in the Sun Archives.

How the city council can subsidize a wealthy viable developer to the tune of $16,000,0000 minus $400,000 or $15,600,000 is beyond understanding, logic and reason.

The cost of the library deck was disclosed in the Naperville Sun to be $19,900,000. Please corret me if I am wrong Moderator Chris as I tend to write from memory. I also recall approximately 500 spots at this library deck upon completion. This roughly calculates to a cost of $40,000 per spot NOT including land. I emphasize NOT including land because land in the downtown area is very expensive going at millions of dollars per acre depending on the location and proximity to the center of downtown.

I have to conclude that our City Officals do not know how to compute the cost of parking. That could be one of many reasons why this city is in such a mess facing an 11 million dollar operating budget that appears to be growing. Personally, I do not feel the city council members are properly questioning City Officials when they make their presentations. If Bill Brestal brought this development forward to the city council, it would not surprise me if it was rubber stamped by the city council. He has been rubber stamped on his projects for 35-40 years now to the tune of 99% acceptability. Let us not forget that before the Napergate Man uncovered it, this gentleman was apparently giving the City Council Members direct contributions in order to probably influence votes on the City Council. Could this behavior be considered a sort of "pay to play scheme?" Not accusing, simply asking.

I think this rubber stamping of the Brestal Law Firm and wealthy and connected developers in town must stop. This Promenade Expansion is costing the taxpayers $15,600,000 NOT including the cost of the land for SUBSIDIZED PARKING. Throw in $4.4 million for the cost of land which is very reasonable for 2 acres and the cost escalates to $20 million.

Assume we have 50,000 residential tax paying dwellers in town. This subsidized parking is costing each taxpayer 400 dollars extra in real estate taxes. Is this fair?

I am sure Dwight Yackely is a nice, moral and ethical man. He is also a shrewd negotiator who is taking advantage of City Officials and City Council Members who are not willing to use a calculator or even their minds. The calculations are so easy and basic, I have not even had to use a calculator. Why can't city officials undertand that the taxpayers are being RAILROADED? Why can't our city council including the likable and transparent Councilman Bob stop the RAILROADING of the taxpayers? Why don't the residential taxpayers wake up and say ENOUGH is ENOUGH? Why does the Naperville Sun not run a front page article combined with an opinion exposing this MASSIVE and UNWARRANTED SUBSIDY? Please consider this, Host Chris.

Many questions but no answers. At least Councilman Bob is trying to answer them. I am proud that I voted for him and will be proud to vote for him again. I hope everyone will vote for him. He led us to the water. He can not force us to drink the water. Councilman Bob has provided damning evidence against our City Officials. Very damning evidence! No one can expect more of this brave councilman. He gave us the evidence on a silver platter. Either we protest loudly or accept an exra 400 dollars on our home real estate tax bills to make Dwight Yakley a multi-millionaire many times over by allowing him to mislead us by suggesting the project is not viable if we don't subsidize almost his entire parking for him. I wonder what else we are subsidizing for him that has not been uncovered yet. Let us keep digging and see where this all leads. Thank you.

====================================================================

PS. As far as your comments CM Bob there are some benefits to subsidizing... Well, any shopping center built anywhere in Naperville will have some benefits. Why not subsidize all parking so they will build more and more shopping centers all over Naperville whether needed or not? The effect of subsidizing will create too much retail space causing many vacancies in town adding to the vacancy glut we already have. Is this what we want? I believe the city council is interfering with market forces by subsidizing any retail or office buiding. The downtown has many vacancies. You are hurting existing landlords who are trying to occupy their vacant space by bringing more retail before the market forces demand it is needed. Do you disagree with me, Councilman Bob?

Councilman Bob,

While most of the rest of the State of Illinois if focused on corruption and ethics and politics I would like you to confirm that the Mayor did not receive an honorarium of other goods and services for presenting an official State of the City address that was not televised on public tv or radio or otherwise made an open public event to the citizens of Naperville. If any kind of remuneration was provided then it is high time the city council pass some local ethics rules on how money changing hands in situations like this are to be handled.

Personally, I agree with the above commenters that performing an official speech of this nature to a closed group smacks of buying influence and the fact that it was conducted outside the city limits is only more egregious.

The explanation/argument of the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce was a weak one at best and I really don't see why it is your place to defend the Chamber. If they have a rational explanation, let them come here and defend their actions.

As to their service area... hogwash. Every single municipality that surrounds Naperville has their own Chamber of Commerce... yep, every single one. Except for Wheaton and Warrenville they all stretch the scope of their title to include words like "area" or something similar. Not one of these Chamber of Commerce limit their membership to businesses within their "service area". Not one of these Chamber of Commerce have a varying rate structure depending upon whether a business is located inside of or outside of the "service area". Bottom line, all of these Chamber of Commerce's are competing business themselves and they compete with each other for membership and membership dollars. In fact the very town where the lunch was held... Lisle... also has a Chamber of Commerce and the official name is Lisle Area Chamber of Commerce.

Despite the charade played to the media... spend your dollars in Naperville... support your local merchants... the Chamber of Commerce was hypocritical in moving this venue outside the city limits and failed to demonstrate leadership by example to the very businesses that it purports to represent.

While we are talking facts... Is the Lisle Hilton a member of the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce? How many total members of the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce are not located within Naperville? And how many Naperville businesses are members of other Chambers of Commerce?

This is yet another embarrassment to the city by our Mayor and it is time for the city council to reign in his conduct. If and when any other State of the City addresses are held in the future the city council should demand that these events be held within the city limits and that they be conducted at a venue that is free and open to the citizens of Naperville.

Stamping out corruption and private access starts at the local level. If we can't clean it up at the local level we will never be able to clean it up state-wide.

The State of the City Address is just one of over 300 events the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce hosts each year, and if you haven’t yet been to a Chamber event, you are welcome to attend any of them, including our monthly luncheons, Young Professionals events or Women in Business breakfasts.

The majority of our events are open to non-members, and all of them are a great opportunity to to network with business owners and professionals from Naperville and across the Chicagoland region, and to hear from community leaders such Mayor Pradel, or Pam Davis, CEO of Edward Hospital, who will be speaking at the March Women in Business breakfast.

As the largest suburban Chamber in Illinois, we represent businesses from all over Chicagoland, and we encourage you to support all of them, not just those within the Naperville boundaries.

I would also like to echo a comment Mayor Pradel made in his Address; that we have proven that we succeed when businesses, residents, and neighboring communities work together. By working together we can achieve the best for our city.

Richard Greene,
President & CEO, Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce

PBS:

Thanks for the expose'. I will be eager to hear how CM Bob reacts. Unless somebody comes forward to blatantly discredit the numbers you're throwing around, then I would be inclined to agree with your breakdown of the situation.

If your hypothesis proves to hold water then I too would expect The Sun to report further on it.

I am really sick of the clout that the developers and their goons like Bill Brestal continue to exert over this town. And I agree with you that it's because they have the system figured out and realize that they will never be called onto the carpet. They know how to use the almighty tax dollar to build their riches and personal playground. It's unjust.

If they need to be cut back down to size, then let it be so.

I often wonder how objective The Sun can be in reporting on this topic, given its historical ties to the Moser family. We'll see.

By BigMike on February 2, 2009 10:46 AM
PBS:

Thanks for the expose'. I will be eager to hear how CM Bob reacts.

If your hypothesis proves to hold water then I too would expect The Sun to report further on it.

I am really sick of the clout that the developers and their goons like Bill Brestal continue to exert over this town. And I agree with you that it's because they have the system figured out and realize that they will never be called onto the carpet. They know how to use the almighty tax dollar to build their riches and personal playground. It's unjust.

I often wonder how objective The Sun can be in reporting on this topic, given its historical ties to the Moser family. We'll see.

------------------------------------------------------------------

BigMike,

My numbers should hold out. I obtained them from the Naperville Sun and from the City of Naperville web site.

Besides the historic Moser connection to the Naperville Sun, we have a current connection involving Editor Tim West's wife who works for the Brestal Law Firm.

The Sun has stated they are not effected in the least bit by this connection. Then my question, why not expose that the Promenade Expansion is only paying for 10-13.33 parking spots for an up to 100,000 s.f. addition.

A 1200 sq. ft. hole in the wall Mom and Pop restaurant is required to have 12 parking spots that they must pay for their on their own according to Naperville City Ordinances.

Yes, we are subsidizing the rich, connected and famous in this town. The Naperville Sun is looking the other way. I do not believe Moderator Chris is the top man at the Sun so it may NOT be in his power to expose the corruption in City Hall. He may have his hands tied but only he can speak for himself.

We all know the Napergate Man did a great job exposing the corruption in City Hall. We all know Napergate V and VI never made it to the presses. My suspician is Editor Tim West who I believe was the top gun at the time shot them down as they brought embarrassment to the Brestal Law Firm where his wife works. It is pure speculation on my part. Keep in mind they were reviewing his ads for libel at the time, so libel could NOT have been the reason for their non-publication. An official reason was never given by the Naperville Sun.

Either the Sun is going to have to come through for us or another Napergate Man or Woman is going to have to surface to EXPOSE the improprieties in the city. It would be much easier and more credible if the Naperville Sun does its job as it said it will do, so many times in the past under the leadership of Jim Lynch and Ted Slovik. I am not sure where our current Moderator stands on exposing corruption when it stares him in the face.

Let us hope Mr. Lynch severance from the Naperville Sun had nothing to do with the fact that he was beginning to expose corruption. The official reason given for his termination was the economy and cutting costs. But usually, the head man in the local newspaper is not the first to have his head chopped off. Just my opinion and observation.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to hear the Moderator's views as why they are not exposing mult-millionaire Dwight Yakleys MASSIVE subsidization by the Naperville Residential Taxpayer. I believe with his 3 buidings we could have subsidized him to the tune of 40-50 million dollars for parking. We know for 2 of his buildings he contributed exactly $500,000 towards parking.(about a dozen parking spots based on library parking deck cost not including land.) For the Main Promenade Building, CM Bob has yet to release the numbers they paid for parking. Does anyone know how to dig them up? Hopefully, since CM Bob is known to be transparent and resident-friendly, he will release the numbers on the MPB shortly.

To be blunt, Promenade, The Sun does not have resources to dig into these transactions. We have half the reporters now that we had last year and we're trying to survive this economy on bare bones just like most other businesses. I don't know if your claims are true or not. I can tell you that Tim West has nothing to do with our news coverage, so if you're looking for a conspiracy you'll have to look somewhere else. We do the best we can to cover as much news as we can, but we can't do everything.

I've lived in Naperville for fourteen years. It's a beautiful community and I'm glad to have decided on living here and raising my children in such a community. But I must say, the city stopped living within it's means the past 5 or 6 years and I don't believe they have yet recognized it. The taxes are outrageous and the discretionary ways in which they have spent some of the money has been nothing short of foolish. Naperville can not and should not try to be all things to everyone and learn to cut back in a significant way just like individual families are learning to do.

And as a retiree...you provide us with very little other than the option of moving out of town..

Moderator,

I understand you have limited resources. I take your word that Tim West no longer influences news coverage as he once did. But he does control the Editorial Page and he may not want to blast City Officials for subsidizing the Promenade Addtition to the tune of up to $25,000,000 for parking in an Opinion. He also has a right to veto any Letter to the Editor on this subject. Is that not correct, Moderator Chris?

A 100,000 square foot addition(this is my estimate based on observation and 3 stories to be built) requires roughly an average of 5 parking spots per 1000 sq. ft. if it is mixed between restaurant and non-restauarant use. Restaurant requires 10 spots per 1000 sq. ft. and non-restaurant requires 4 spots per 1000 sq. ft.

The library deck was calculated to cost 19.9 million dollars by city officials even though it is sitting on public land the taxpayers own. It will have about 500 parking spots or roughly what this new building needs in parking based on city ordinaces.

If you were to estimate the price of 2 acres of land in the central district at $5.1 million, we have a 25 million dollar cost for 500 parking spots. And we are letting Dwight Yakely and the Promenade Expansion off by paying an insulting $400,000 dollars in lieu of providing his own parking. This is highway robbery being imposed on the sleepy Naperville Taxpayer who wrongfully trusts his city council and city officials to watch out for him. They are not watching out for the small person. They are watching out for the big developer. The Naperville Sun has a duty to watch out for the small person who is working 60 hours a week and counting on his newspaper to be the watchdog it is suppose to be.

Moderator Chris, with all due respect this is a BIG STORY. Your newspaper has many stories that are less important published on a daily basis. You can get a reporter off one story for one day, and put him or her on this MONSTER STORY.

This is an outrageous milking of the residential taxpayer of nearly 25 million dollars to enrich a local developer. Please find time and do a story. Show us the Naperville Sun can expose improprieties and corruption when it is handed to the Sun on a silver platter.

Let me know what research I can do for you to help your short handed staff get this story to the public. It is a very important story and should not be ignored by a reputable and estbalished newspaper. In some way, it is your duty to your readers and subscribers to expose such INJUSTICE to the Naperville Taxpayers' pocketbooks. Please consider my request.

I said I'd pass it on. That's all I can promise you on the subject.

Mr. Greene,

Thank you for your marketing pitch for the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce. I agree with the Mayor “that we have proven that we succeed when businesses, residents, and neighboring communities work together. By working together we can achieve the best for our city.” It is unfortunate that none of the residents and taxpayers got to hear those words, except those Naperville business people who paid to attend the monthly general membership luncheon held in Lisle.

I understand that anyone is allowed to attend these monthly general membership luncheons if they pay the price. Albeit a higher price then members pay. And I did see your ad in the last Naperville Bridges newsletter that I received. At least I assume it was a paid ad since Councilman Bob made it clear that George Pradel’s talk was not an official City of Naperville event but simply one of the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce’s paid monthly general membership luncheons. Is this indeed the case?

I am disappointed that you did not address any of the issues brought up by me, or any of the other people on this forum, concerning the appearance of impropriety, insensitivity, and contempt shown by your organization. Perhaps now that you have taken the time and have had the opportunity to make a marketing pitch for the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, you will have the time to address these important issues.

Just for the record the Promenade Expansion is 62,095 square feet.
Thus it would require roughly two thirds of what my prior posts suggested.

Around 16 million in parking compared to the 400,000 paid by the developer as opposed to 25 million or my earlier estimate based on 100,000 s.f.

Thus he owes the taxpayers about 15,600,000 dollars and not 24,600,000 based on a price of 40k a parking spot as per the library estimates.

I hope the City sends him a bill soon instead of stiffing us residential taxpayers.

I was reading your posts more carefully to determine if I think there's a story there and I just don't see it. I think your numbers are way out of line. Five million dollars per acre? I don't know if real estate in Manhattan is worth that much. Councilman Bob knows what he's talking about and based on his numbers I don't see a problem here. His numbers and yours are so far apart that there's no way to reconcile them, so one of you is doing something wrong in your math. I have to believe he is correct.

Moderator Chris,

Even if you go with Councilman Bob's numbers which are already based on subsidization, the city reduced the fee-in-lieu of parking by 800,000 from 1.2 million to 400,000 for a very wealthy developer without performing its DUE DILIGENCE to verify the project was not viable without the additional subsidy.

This in itself is a travesty of justice. Why reduce an already subsidized fee by 66.6667%? He voted to reduce it because he felt there was some benefit to be derived from the project.

Well, every retail development has some benefit to the city as it generates sales tax. Do you think it is fair to give downtown landlords breaks while forcing out-of-downtown landlords to pay for their full parking....every last penny of it?

Please reconsider this matter Moderator Chris just based on what CM Bob stated.

Moderator Chris,

I never said 5 million for 1 acre. I stated 5.1 million for 2 acres. You need 2 acres to build a 500 car garage such as the library deck. While I am not a realtor, I would be willing to bet you 100 dollars that an acre of land was going for at least 2.5 million bucks in the central downtown area especially and certainly before the bubble burst.

Maybe a realtor can verify this for us.

An acre in Manhattan is worth over 50 million in some areas. An acre in some prime areas of the Chicago Loop is worth at least 25 million. Again, possibly now but certainly before the bubble burst.

Before the bubble burst I went with a friend to look for land on 111th St and 95th St and the asking price was 1.1 million dollars for one acre. He was considering opening a drive thru dry cleaner but when he found out the cost of land, he opened his shop in North Carolina where he found a similar piece of land for 100,000 dollars.

Land was outrageous before the bubble burst. Many residential one acre lots were going for a million and if they were wooded over a million.

Even when District 204 tried to buy 80 acres near 75th and 59 they were being charged over a half a million an acre. Usually when you buy a tract of land that large the price is much less than if you are just buying an acre or two. A Dupage Jury held up that the price was fair. I believe it was 530,000 an acre from memory. That land can not compare in value to downtown Naperville land.

If a residential lot in the outskirts of Naperville was selling for a million, I suspect downtown land if it was availabe, was selling for much more than my estimate of 2.5 million per acre.

Again, when I stated "assume the land at the library was worth $5.1 million," I was assuming it was about 2 acres as it seems about that size.

Unless I am mistaken, the city will own the parking structure that is being built. This probably accounts for a significant amount of the difference between the fee-in-lieu and the cost to build. Also, the Promenade will not be the sole beneficiary of the structure.

-JQP

By Naperville Sun editors on February 2, 2009 11:31 PM
His numbers and yours are so far apart that there's no way to reconcile them, so one of you is doing something wrong in your math. I have to believe he is correct.

------------------------------------------------------------------

While Councilman Bob is a very nice person, he admitted he is no expert and is learning. I am also no expert and I am learning. Let us not take Bob's side or my side until we can iron this mess out.

The bottom line is parking spots in the downtown are very very expensive. Both the City and the Sun have reported that the cost to build the library deck is 19.9 million dollars. I am sure CM Bob can confirm this. If this lot can give us 500 parking spots, they would come at a cost of roughly $40,000 each. If you divide 20 million by 500 parking spots, you come up with 40k per parking spot. So I have to be right and I am not counting the price of the 2 acres this deck will occupy which I strongly believe is worth 5 million dollars if the city did not own it and had to buy it from a private enterprise.

I did some research and found out the exact size of this addition is 62,095 feet right from the minutes of the last City Council Meeting. If you go with 5 spots per 1000 s.f., you need 310 parking spots for this building according to City of Naperville Ordinances. If this building is loaded with restaurants, the city uses a formula of 10 per 1000 sq. ft. for restaurant, bar or lounge space. I am sure we all understand a bar needs more parking than a shoe or boutique store of equal size.

Since this Promenade Expansion is only contributing 400k for parking and this is directly from CM Bob, and the cost of ONE parking spot is 40k without counting the land, this huge building expansion is only paying for 10 parking spots when it needs 310 parking spots. We the taxpayers are subsidizing the cost of 300 parking spots for this Promenade Expansion or roughly 12,000,000 dollars.(300 parking spots X 40,000 per parking spot) I am excluding the price of the land since it is in dispute for now. Thus the true cost per parking spot is significantly higher than my conservative estimate which does not even include any cost for land.

The reason it seems that these numbers are irreconciable to you, Moderator Chris, is because when there are IMPROPRIETIES nothing makes sense. Everything seems IRRECONCIABLE and in fact is. Therefore you are right. Here we have possibly massive corruption by city officials to subsidize the downtown with bogus formulas they created and incorporated into ordinances. And if that was not enough they chop their own requirements by two thirds for an apparently well-connected developer and his infamous well-known attorney.

I see this issue as black and white. I just feel it is too bad this whole town is sleeping. It is hard to wake them up on a blog site that is not yet established with significant viewers.

The Napergate Man was able to wake the sleeping folks in this town up because he used the Naperville Sun which had a very deep penetration of 22,000 subscriptions at the time with about half the population we have now. He reached everyone and made a difference.

Apparently no one in this town who is against the establishment has the money to take ads out or wants to spend it. I personally don't have any spare money for ads as I lost a considerable amount of my wealth in the stock market the last 2 years like most Americans. So it falls on the shoulders of the Naperville Sun to either expose this alleged corruption or let it slide.

I hope you reconsider Moderator Chris and believe there is a story here....a VERY BIG STORY!

John Q. Public,

I think you are missing the point here. The city requires a developer to pay for the cost of parking based on existing cost plus inflation.

The cost of parking is 40,000 dollars per spot based on the library deck projections. This developer who needs 310 spots is only paying for 10 spots. 10 X 40k per spot is equal to 400,000 dollars which is what this developer is paying according to CM Bob.

Yes, the taxpayers own or will own this deck but it was built for the sole benefit of those who did not want to build their own parking. Thus they should be responsible for paying for its cost in full. Just like anyone who builds a shopping center has to pay for the cost of his parking in full.

If you build a 62,000 retail space outside of the downtown, you need about 6 acres of parking. You could never obtain 6 acres of land and blacktop them for 400k. It would cost at least 4 million dollars(including grading, rocking, sanding and asphalting) for the parking away from the downtown where land is significantly cheaper. How are we letting the owner of the Promenade Expansion off the hook for only 400k? It is unbelievable! It is an injustice to the taxpayers. It is highway robbery.

I hope someone comes on this blog soon and understands what I am trying to say. Right now with all due respect, it seems no one can comprehend what I am saying.

Maybe this is how the city wants it, so it can continue to wazoo us to bankruptcy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. I am not holding the Promenade Expansion accountable for the full cost of the library structure or any other structure that will accomodate its parking needs. I am holding them responsible for ONLY their pro rata share.

Thus if they need 300 parking spots of a 500 spot parking deck that costs 25 million to build including land, I am saying they need to be responsible for 60% of the cost of this parking deck or 15 million dollars. Yet, they only paid a measely 400k out of the 15 million dollars needed to accomodate them.

The money collected is suppose to go into an escrow account of the city in order for the city to build and accomodate the developer's future needs. But how can the city build him 300 parking spots that cost 12 million dollars without factoring in the land cost, if he is only contributing $400,000. It is impossible!

Thus what I am saying is the taxpayers will have to ante up the rest of the money to subsidize this developer in the form of residential real estate taxes. I think this is unfair and unjust. Do you see my point, John Q. Public?

I am an employee at the Hilton in Lisle along with over 200 others who proudly live, shop, dine and support Naperville. The Hilton has been an active member and supporter of the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce for many years and was honored to host the Mayor's address. After the luncheon one of the local area business women commented to me that she was very grateful for the ammount of guests that we shuttle to her Naperville restaurant daily. And that without them her business would not be surviving. I am certain that many other Naperville restaurant, gas station and entertainment facility owners feel the same way.

Naperville Pride,

You need to have a chat with the Mayor of Naperville. He is the one asking us to spend our money ONLY in Naperville. I personally love Lisle and don't mind spending money in Lisle especially since prices in downtown Lisle are much lower than downtown Naperville. I can not longer afford taking my extended family of 7 to downtown Naperville to eat. Prices are just too high. The Last Fling and Ribfest are too overcrowded besides being pricey. I skip both and attend the Lisle Festival which is given much more land to operate and much less pricey.

Councilman Bob,

I understand there is a council meeting tonight and I was wondering if this may be an opportunity for you to ask city staff some questions about the Promenade Expansion.

I have been reviewing council minutes, Sun Archives, your comments and the City of Naperville Web Site and everything indicates this Promenade Expansion was subsidized to a greater extent than the $800,000 dollars you mentioned in a previous post.

My research indicates this Expansion is 62,095 sq. ft. The City of Naperville usually requires 4 parking spots per 1000 sq. ft. for non-restaurant type uses and 10 spots for restaurant type uses. If we went with an avergae of 5 parking spots per thousand, this Promenade Expansion will need 310 parking spots.

You have indicated in a previous post, that the Promenade Expansion will be contributing only $400,000 in lieu or providing their own parking. Based on the latest estimates of building the library deck for 19.9 million dollars the cost of ONE parking spot is $40,000. Thus this very large building that needs 310 spots is only buying 10 parking spots with this 400k required contribution which was reduced from an initial $1.2 million required contribution by the city council.

Who is paying for the other 300 parking spots this building needs Councilman Bob? This disturbs me. I would like you to try to find out the answer tonight and report back to us. If the taxpayers are paying for these 300 parking spots at a cost of 12-15 million depending on the price of land, I think this is a milking of the taxpayers by our City Staff. I would like you to confront them and ask them for explanations to see if they have any.

I am sure there may be some street parking to the tune of 10-15 spots surrounding this building that we can give them credit for even though the taxpayers own them. But that still leaves us with 285 parking spots that are needed and someone has to pay for.

Maybe I am missing something. If I am, someone should be able to point out where I am wrong in my analyis or mathematics or calculations.

In the meantime, I feel city staff did a poor analysis when they determined this building only needed $1.2 million fee in-lieu-of parking which would have amounted to 30 parking spots instead of 310 spots. Thus they undercharged this building for 280 spots or at leasst 265 if you want to give the building credit for the 15 spots on the street that align their building.

The city council needs to take responsibility for 20 parking spots they waived for this Promenade Expansion. The City Staff gave them the deal of the century by only requiring them to pay for 30 spots instead of 310. But than the city council finds a way to top the deal of the century by reducing the requirement from 30 spots to 10 spots for a building that needs 310 spots. Truly remarkable! Truly amazing! May God wake up the sleeping taxpayers in this town who are allowing both the City Staff and City Council to pick their pockets while they are snoring. May God wake up the Naperville Sun which is not living up to its reputation of an investigative newspaper.

Well, if there is a chronic shortage of parking downtown, it should be obvious why and who is responsible. I hope you can ask our City Staff some questions and report back to us tomorrow, CM Bob.

I am glad that we can count on you Councilman Bob. Please don't think of this as an ambush. It is simply a request by a concerned citizen as to the oversubsidization of a wealthy developer. It is a deep concern of mine as a taxpayer who will be effected. I don't want to be confronted with an increased real estate tax bill to the tune of 300 dollars because a well-to-do developer is unwilling to pay legitimate costs associated with his expansion project.

I understand there are benefits with any retail/office development in the City of Naperville. If we are not waiving parking requirements for retail/office developements outside of the downtown that also have benefits, why do we feel this obligation to waive requirements for downtown landlords. The issue here is not a minor waving of fees. It is a major waving of fees to the tune of $14,600,000 dollars. Yes, I am claiming City Staff did not know how to properly assess this building for its proper fee-in-lieu-of- parking. They were off by at least a multiple of 12.

I hope you can address this issue and bring clarity to your constituents and myself. If my logic is wrong someone should be able to prove it is wrong and explain why. Unless, someone provides evidence to the contrary, my position remains that City Staff and the City Council fleeced the Naperville Taxpayers for 14.6 million dollars.

We here at the Hilton Lisle/Naperville along with our 250 employees are very proud of our relationship with the City of Naperville. For almost 30 years many of us have lived in Naperville. Our children were born in Naperville. We attend Naperville churches. Our children attend our wonderful Naperville schools. We shop, dine and entertain in Naperville. Some of us walk from our homes down to Centenial Beach to swim with our children. I walked along the riverwalk with my wife on our first date and now bring my four daughters down to enjoy. We support and belong to the numerous charities and wonderful organizations in Naperville. In our almost 30 years of being a part of Naperville we have grown along with this wonderful City. We have shared our growth right along with Naperville. On any given night you simply need to look downtown along with other parts of the City to see our Hotel shuttles bringing our guests to the many amenities of Naperville. I assure you that we bring more people from out of town to the downtown area of Naperville than any other entity. We are part of Naperville and very proud of it. Please do not let the fact that the border, which is a few hundred feet to the west, makes any difference to our committment to the wonderful city of Naperville.

Richard Brink,

Very well said. Your issue is not with your fellow Napervillians.

Your issue should be with the Mayor of Naperville who asked us to spend our money in Naperville and not Lisle.

Give Mayor Pradel a call. He is a very nice man. Maybe he will apologize to the residents and tell us it is OK to spend money in Lisle.

The Mayor of Naperville is like a POPE or Santa Claus. If he tells the residents to only spend their money in Naperville, they will listen to him. He has even encouraged Napervillians to stay in Naperville for their vacations and many have listened.

But you have a very good point. If the Naperville does not lift its boycott of Lisle, I would recommend stopping your shuttles to downtown Naperville as a form of protest until the Mayor lifts the boycott of Lisle.

I love Lisle and I think Mayor Pradel should exempt Lisle from his boycott of surrounding towns.

Editors: Would you please post a link to the text of the Mayor's speech to the Chamber of Commerce. I'd really like to be able to read where Mayor Pradel instituted a boycott of Lisle or any other community.

Fed up, there's a link to the speech in this article.
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1398066,Naperville-pradel-state-of-city-012609.article

NSE: thanks for posting the link to Mayor Pradel's speech. I just read it twice - and granted, I might have missed his call for a boycott of Lisle - but I didn't see anything remotely resembling that kind of statement.

Anonymous on February 4, 2009 1:01 PM: you made a pretty serious statement about the Mayor and Lisle. Can you back it up; or is this just more of your noise and inflammatory and defamatory rhetoric? As far as I can tell, the Mayor never said anything about a boycott or not spending money in any other community. What fantasy world did you hear this in?

Fed Up With The Noise-

I've read his speech, and this is pretty much the only way I can figure that Mayor Pradel is telling people to boycott Lisle. It's in secret code.

Are you familiar with Bible code? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code ) Basically, some people believe that you can align the letters of the Bible in to a grid, then it basically works like a word search that you'd find between the Jumble and Crossword puzzles on the comics page of the newspaper. You just pick words that make sense, form some half-baked theory, and there you go. There's even Moby Dick code ( http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html ), perhaps our Anonymous friend has deciphered a similar secret code inside of Mayor Pradel's state of the city address?

Fed Up With The Noise on February 4, 2009 3:02 PM
Responding to: Anonymous on February 4, 2009 1:01 PM

What fantasy world did you hear this in?

_______________

Uh, Fed Up,

That land used to be called Napergatianville, and now it's just Fantasyland.

Mayor Pradel has asked residents many times to spend their tax dollars in Naperville.

Spending your tax dollars in Naperville does help Naperville make ends meet. Naperville collects a portion of any sales tax paid in Naperville. Naperville does not collect a portion of any tax that is spent in any other town.

Since the Moderator reviews and reads every NAPERVILLE SUN before it is published, he should be able to verify that Mayor Pradel has asked us to spend our money in Naperville.

The Mayor is right. If you buy a car in Oak Brook, you are depriving Naperville of a few hundred dollars. If you buy your car in Naperville, you are helping keep your real estate tax bill down in Naperville.

Kudos to the Mayor for telling people to spend their money in Naperville. That was a smart fiscal move. The sad thing is towns can retaliate and ask their residents to spend their tax dollars in their towns and in fact many do.

This Hilton Lisle Hotel does send Naperville lots of customers. So it is justifiaby upset that many Naperville residents complained about the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce holding its annual event in Lisle instead of Naperville.

Regardless of what this hotel says, the Mayor is not now going to ask Naperville residents to shop in Lisle. He has an $11.5 million deficit and needs every penny he can from sales tax generated by Naperville residents spending their money in Naperville businesses.

The Mayor has quietly told us to boycott all the surrounding towns when it comes to spending and we need to heed his message. If we don't our real estate taxes will be much higher.

The mayor did encourage residents to spend their money locally. He never said to boycott surrounding towns. It's obvious to me that he meant to think about who's getting your sales tax dollar when you go shopping.

Mr. Brink,

Thank you for your passionate defense of your hotel, the Hilton Lisle/Naperville. I believe that when the businesses of bordering cities can cooperate then everybody can win. And while I agree with everything you say I fail to see the relevance of your comments to this entry about George Pradel’s talk before the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce’s paid monthly general membership luncheon.

The issue is not about the Hilton Lisle/Naperville hosting a monthly luncheon. The issue is: should the Annual State of the City Address for the City of Naperville by the Mayor of Naperville be held in the City of Naperville. The outstanding controversy is whether the talk given by George Pradel at the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce’s paid monthly general membership luncheon at your hotel in Lisle was an official City of Naperville Government event or a private event put on by a Naperville based organization, namely the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce. The private organization, the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, is certainly free to have their functions anywhere they please. And I have myself attended a number of events at the Hilton Lisle/Naperville and they have all been a great success. However, if the talk given by George Pradel at the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce’s paid monthly general membership luncheon was in fact an official City of Naperville government event, then I have to protest and suggest that holding this outside the City of Naperville was wrong. This should in no way be construed as a call to not patronize quality businesses, such as yours, outside the City of Naperville.

Thank you for your continued support of the City of Naperville. Perhaps you could use your influence with the City and the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce to prompt them to address this issue fully and clearly and remove the cloud of impropriety hanging over this event.

By Naperville Sun editors on February 4, 2009 5:19 PM
The mayor did encourage residents to spend their money locally. He never said to boycott surrounding towns. It's obvious to me that he meant to think about who's getting your sales tax dollar when you go shopping.

===================================================================

You are exactly right, Moderator. Of course he did not call for an official boycott but an indirect, secret and quiet boycott of other towns. He wants every Napervillian to spend his dollars in only Naperville. That really is very smart. People should take a hint and understand that means boycotting all other towns unless absolutely necessary.

I think it is stupid for a Napervillian to buy their groceries at a Jewel in Woodridge or Lisle instead of a Jewel in Naperville even if you have to drive an extra half a mile. Keeping our money in Naperville means increased sales tax and reduced real estate taxes....unless of course our government ends up wasting the money which appears to be the case many times.

Now the multi personality blogger has really crossed the line into paranoia. The state he/she made "Of course he did not call for an official boycott but an indirect, secret and quiet boycott of other towns." shows how disturbed this person must be.

Fed Up With the Noise,

I have determined you, Keyboard Rambo and Anonymous One are the same person. You always agree with each other, have the same style of writing and devote your lives to attacking me. Your 3 personalities never have anything useful to provide or say.

I gave your Keyboard Rambo personality a tongue lashing today. Are you looking for one too? The moderator has asked numerous times that bloggers refrain from personal attacks and concentrate on the issues. Why is it that you are incapable of listening?

Why is it that you can not play by the rules? Are you ignorant or dumb or both? Did you ever get your high school degree?

One thing the Moderator can easily observe is that you and your multiple personalities always start the personal attacks. Personally, I do not understand why the moderator would post your last blog after he asked us to cool it.

While the Mayor did not call for an official boycott of surrounding towns he made it clear he wanted us to spend our money in Naperville. It has the same effect but the Mayor chose the right strategy with his words of wisdom. The only paranoia is in your head that has been blown away. It is cracked and the wires are burnt and the bearings are loose. I am sorry I have to repeat myself to each one of your personalities.

Keyboard Rambo and Anonymous One, and I are not the same person - Editor Chris can confirm this. As for playing by the "rules" - you never seem to follow the rules when you play your games. As soon as someone says anything that indicates disapproval with you or your opinions, you consider that a personal attack. When someone calls you out on your crack pot theories, you feel it is perfectly acceptable to make the most incredulous comments and accusations at them. You constantly see and proclaim conspiracy at every turn. From reading your multiple postings on multiple topics over the past months, I can only surmise that you feel that the government is out to get you, that all politicians are corrupt, and that the Naperville Sun editors are either morally or ethically challenged or too young and inexperienced to know.anything.

Just so we are clear - yes I think you are suffering from paranoia. And just so I explain that to you, - I use the term as defined as follows:

Par⋅a⋅noi⋅a: baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others

The mayor asking that people spend their money in Naperville is not a call for a "indirect, secret and quiet boycott of other towns". It was a simple statement - one you chose to blow out of proportion - as you do with many topics.

As for your comments about me personally, I could care less what you think. As others have told you before, you bring interesting and thought provoking ideas to the blogs. However, your rhetoric and accusatory style is just alienating others and making you look like a crazy person. Your accusation of conspiracy at every turn, your posts that flame those that disagree with you, your silly name calling, all make people discredit what you have to say and respond to you in a negative fashion. If you have an opinion, fine - share it. Express it vociferously! The negative responses you receive here from others is a rejection of your tactics and methods of expression by the "community of bloggers" that come to the site. Change your tactics and you might find a different reception. You might be pleasantly surprised.

I too find it impossible to believe that in a town of 150,000 there would be three people who think your relentless hijacking of every available thread to promote whatever conspiracy theory you cooked up the night before is amusing.

I suggest you stop back-seat moderating, and try to learn how to raise awareness about something without jumping so far off the deep end that you need scuba gear. Again, similar to your internet Israeli freedom fighting, there may be a reasonable message behind all these rants. Unfortunately, few people will ever find that message because as soon as you start suggesting "secret boycotts", asking God to "wake up the sleeping tax payers", along with "massive corruption" and "bogus formulas", then turn around and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of not even graduating highschool... The signals get completely lost amongst all the noise.

It's kind of like PETA. At the end of the day, they have a good message. It takes a pretty deranged person to not support ethical treatment of all walks of life, animals included. Unfortunately, the way PETA chooses to deliver its message, with extremely graphic and biased propaganda, scares away all but the most militant animal rights activists.

I think if you can find a way to deliver your message without suggesting the rest of Naperville are sleeping brain washed sheep and you are the lone enlightened one... you might actually get some people to join your cause.

Councilman Bob, I posted in the other thread warning you of responding to this person. Please heed my warning, and if you choose to respond, pick your words wisely and leave absolutely no room open for interpretation unless you want to just give this person more ammo as he twists your words to support his latest conspiracy theory.

Anonymous on February 4, 2009 11:54 PM
I have determined you, Keyboard Rambo and Anonymous One are the same person. You always agree with each other.
...
One thing the Moderator can easily observe is that you and your multiple personalities always start the personal attacks.

__________

Back to being just Anonymous?, I'm going to add this to the classic sybil list of your many rantings. If anyone can determine multiple personalities it would be you, but unfortunately you're a little off on this one.

I have a few statements which I tried to use "Napergate speak" to write:

Let us call on our mayor Pradel to stop the whisper campaign and simply demand that we all spend our money within Naperville's city limits. This is something Anonymous, most probably, has determined is the real intent and the hidden meaning behind Pradel's speech. Apparently Anonymous is also clairvoyant.

Let us call on "Anonymous" to stop the personal attacks on everyone who disagrees, and stop getting their rises out of calling people ignorant and dumb. When someone spends a year debating themselves as Anonymous has done, and patting themselves on the back at every turn, they should expect their own tongue lashing from those who view this in a negative light. As I've mentioned before it goes to credibility.

Let us call on the Napergate man to return and start running ads denouncing pay to play politics, the promenade caper, and the Israel / Hammas situation. According to anonymous he is the only one capable of real change in this city.

Let us call on Anonymous to stop criticizing the Sun who have provided this free forum for anyone to comment.

There you go Anonymous, I even gave you kind of a shout out about the Pradel thing? And as for the three of us being the same because we agree with each other? I'm sure we disagree with each other on many items, but like almost all of the other bloggers on this site we probably do agree that you are misinformed on most, if not all topics, and we probably agree that your methods of debate are less than convincing. (I could have been more harsh in my descriptions, but I'm starting to feel a little sorry for Anonymous and backed off).

Fed Up With the Noise, Keyboard Rambo, and Anonymous One,

I am convinced you are the same person. Chris can not confirm that you are not.

It sounds like you blog from your home and then a couple of computers you have access to outside your home.

Your writing styles are all the same. Your thoughts are all the same.

You are all paranoid about one anonymous individual. All obsessed with one anonymous individual. All unable to obey the Moderator's directive to focus on the issues instead of the personalities of this blog site. All seem to appear in tandem.

You all attack this one person and never his message.

You all claim, I started the personal attacks, even though I refrained from saying a word till yesterday about your multi faceted handles that attacked me in the last 2 weeks.

You could never find 3 fools of your caliber in Naperville. I am glad we only have one fool in this town and not 3.

Why don't you(singular) focus on the issues and ignore me? Are you capable? Is my message so powerful that you can not refute it and resort to tactics of attacking the messenger?

There is nothing paranoid about objecting to the city council allowing a major developer to pay for only 10 parking spots while the taxpaying residents pay for the other 300 parking spots. It is a fleecing of the taxpayers to the tune of 14.6 million dollars. I have documented this with facts and figures obtained from City Hall.

For you to see nothing wrong with the city and its actions, indicates you probably work for the city and defending the bankrupt policies you have put into play.

And now you are trying to advise a very intelligent councilman as to how to debate or discuss with me. Councilman Bob does not need your advice or those of your 2 other handles. He is about discussing issues that he feels are important and relevant. He is about transparency.

He was kind enough to admit to us that the city council subsidized at least two thirds of the parking for a wealthy developer. I appreciate his honesty and his vote, but think he voted in error. Maybe through debate with his constituents, in the future he will not support subsidizing developers because their projects have a benefit to Naperville.

All development in Naperville has benefits. Not just downtown development. Shoould we subsidize every development in town at taxpayer expense because it provides a benefit to the City? That is where I have an issue with CM Bob. I am sure CM BOB has been around for a long time and can handle one Napervillian objecting to one of his votes.

He is a mature and productive individual who votes what he believes in. I am sure he does not expect 100% of the voters to agree with him on any issue.

__________________________________________________________________

Moderator Chris,

Since this PSYCHO 3 thinks I start the personal attacks and you are the Moderator and witness, could you please point out to him who starts the personal attacks.

I am strictly writing about topics when I suddenly and frequently find myself under attack by this one individual pretending to be 3. Please be kind enough to verify that to PSYCHO 3. Thank you!

Anonymous, they are not the same people. I don't think they were attacking you, they were questioning your tactics. Frankly, I think they offered some good advice and you should listen to what they said instead of just lashing out against them. There's no reason why people can't disagree with each other without calling each other names and questioning their sanity or their intelligence. I'm not saying you're the only one who insults other people, but you always seem to be involved, so one has to wonder what the reason for that is. There has been a very civil discussion going on on one of the other threads about the differences between liberal and conservative politics. The people don't agree with each other but they've been able to debate without getting mad about it. They stick to the issue and don't go after one another. It would be nice if everyone could discuss their opinions in this manner.

Editor Chris:

You understand exactly what my point is. Thank you for confirming that I am "me" and not KR or Anon One.

Anonymous or BHA or Eggs on Their Faces or Promenade Building being Subsidized or whom ever else you want to be today:

If you truly think there are shenanigans going on in City Hall, why not ask for an appointment with Mayor Pradel or Councilman Bob to explain your concerns. As I truly believe they are both honest, ethical people, I am sure they would want hear from you.

If you truly have the kind of information you claim, why not write the article you have offered to write for the NS and send it to them. If it has merit, my guess is they would publish it as an op ed piece. Even if they wouldn't print it, it might change their minds about doing their own story. If you are correct about some kind of sweetheart deal being done, then that's a feather in your cap and I would salute you.

But - please please please stop insulting people, stop telling those who don't agree with you that they are stupid or unintelligent or uneducated. You garner no respect for your causes or yourself when you talk to people that way. Whether intentional or not, your rhetoric is inflammatory and does not engender a spirit of two way communication. People are willing to listen - but not when someone calls them insulting names or uses denigrating terms to describe them. We are not nazis or zionists. We do not have burnt wires or loose bearings. I'd be willing to guess that most, if not all have graduated high school, college and possibly even have earned advanced degrees. We do not need you to tell people to have a healthy sex life or any of the other comments you make.
If you want respect, then give respect. And that means respecting the rights of others to have opinions that are different from yours.

Moderator and Fed Up with Noise,

The evidence is right on this blog site. I was minding my own business and tackling issues.

I began being attacked personally. I warned the Moderator to take note. Only after a few days of personal attacks did I respond with counter-attacks.

Many of the issues on this blog site are being raised by myself.

What issues have Fed Up with the Noise, Keyboard Rambo and Anonymous One come up with? All they do is attack me instead of debating my message or raising their own message.

Here we have AnnE popping in for the first time in a few weeks. Instead of discussing a thread subject, she is implying pyschosis and attacking me. I am sure I initiated that too, Moderator. I think you are being unfair by not calling it as it is. I know it is hard to side with one over many, but the truth is I mind my own business and they attack me. It is all in black and white. It can be tracked. You allow it to happen and when it becomes two sided you appear to lose track as to who starts this nonsense. When it gets bad, you call for it to end. I agree to end per your advice only to wake up in the morning to find the attacks are continuing.

While you may or not be right Moderator, you have no way of knowing with certainty whether these 3 individuals are one or different. IP numbers don't help if bloggers blog from multi locations such as work, home or a friend's house. No one can decipher writing style with 100% certainty including yourself, Moderator, even though you are much sharper than your predecessors.

It seems like no one bothers me for 2 weeks and suddenly Keyboard Rambo, Fed Up with the Noise, and Anonymous One pop up out of nowhere and simultaneously. I remain strongly suspicious they are the same peson trying to destroy my worthy message by attacking my meaningless anonymous handles.

My message will shine through and will eventually resonate with your viewers. The truth is hard to dispute.

Councilman Bob comes on this site to debate. He disagrees with me. I never called him a name. I have always complemented him for his honesty and transparency. If these 3 individuals learned something from CM Bob, they would be treated equally well too.

They are even trying to turn CM Bob against me. Did you not notice that Moderator? With all due respect, Moderator, I think it should be obvious to you who is trying to cause the trouble.

I don't think these individual(s) understand(s) the difference between a personal attack and a disputing of the message. Maybe, if you could explain the difference to them, we could have a much more civil debate as we do on other threads.

As you know Moderator, I blog on other threads and when they don't recognize it's me, things are pretty civil. When they recognize it is me, they just go off.

I like to use different handles on different threads. I like using titles as opposed to name handles as I believe it may increase the chance a blog may be read if it has an exciting title.

Obviously, I am not here trying to make a name for myself. I enjoy being as anonymous as possible. I am concerned about the issues that are fleecing the taxpayer and hoping to wake up my fellow taxpayers.

Eventually, when your blog site develops serious viewership, I know I will be successful in spreading the word. And hopefully making a difference!

There is no way if I appeared before the City Council by myself, I could make a difference. I watch city council meetings. They will let you speak for 3 minutes and if they don't like your message they will ignore you. They only listen if you can rally a very large group.

Yes, the Napergate Man got through to them many years ago. But only after rallying hundreds of people to join him in attending city council meetings by using the media in the form of paid ads. And even than it was epic battle after epic battle with the city council reversing themselves everytime he and his large group did not show up.

That is why I believe without media help, you can not fight or beat City Hall. You will waste your breath. If we are going to stop improprieties in this town, the Naperville Sun needs to take the lead. Otherwise, I don't think it will work unless God sends us another Napergate Man who is willing to be the MEDIA again.

To Anonymous on February 5, 2009 4:42 PM

You are unbelievable. You just don't get it, do you. You say when people don't recognize you, things are pretty civil. Could it be when you are not posting wildly speculative conspiracy theories or insulting other posters that people may actually respect what you are saying and find no need to respond? Is that just possible?

There is no way if I appeared before the City Council by myself, I could make a difference. I watch city council meetings. They will let you speak for 3 minutes and if they don't like your message they will ignore you. They only listen if you can rally a very large group.

How do you know you can't make a difference if you're too lazy to try? Do you have any idea how many historical references I can come up with of one person standing up making a difference? I can hardly choose one there are so many. Since you seem to be obsessed with religion, what if Martin Luther decided one person could never make a difference and instead chose to just whine and complain to people instead of writing The Ninety-Five Theses?

As you know Moderator, I blog on other threads and when they don't recognize it's me, things are pretty civil. When they recognize it is me, they just go off.

It's when you come here, preaching like you're the lone enlightened one desperately screaming amongst a sea of moronic sheep who have had the wool pulled over there eyes that everyone stops taking you seriously. You often rant on end about credibility, do you honestly think this is the best way to be seen as a credible source of information?

Again, it's just like PETA. You can easily make a rational argument that fur farms that do nothing but mass produce mink, slaughter them for their skins, then discard the carcasses are pretty cruel... and convince any reasonable person to agree with you. Or, you can stand outside of Neiman Marcus throwing buckets of paint on anyone who walks out wearing a fur coat.

Do you really not see the parallels here? The more extreme you are about something, the quicker people write you off as being crazy and disregard your entire message regardless of whether or not it's a valid one.

If you consider this advice as a "personal attack", then you really are beyond hope.

I don't think it will work unless God sends us another Napergate Man who is willing to be the MEDIA again.

...Wow, just wow. Really? REALLY?

There is no way if I appeared before the City Council by myself, I could make a difference.

If appearing by yourself at a council meeting won't make a difference, why do you think blogging anonymously by yourself will make a difference here? I challenge you to simply attend a council meeting and observe - don't sign up to speak, just watch. During the breaks or after the meeting take the time to introduce yourself to at least one of the council members. Ask them if you might be able to set up an appointment and discuss your concerns. I find it hard to believe you wouldn't get an opportunity for this.

Anonymous at 5:42 was me

Anonymous One,

You can not make a difference until you expose and publicise cronyism. That is what I am attempting to do.

When it will be exposed to the masses, everything will fall into place.

The local media is crucial to having success in battling city hall on a major issue like the Promenade Expansion.

Right now the local media wants to leave city hall alone. Let us wait until they have a change of heart and see what happens.

Editor Tim West controls the opinion page. Writing an editorial exposing the Brestal Law Firm and its cronyism will most likely NOT be published. His wife works there. He is not going to allow a letter blasting his wife's law firm to appear on his OPINION PAGE and subject himself to a divorce. Would you, Anonymous One?

Tim West is not the healthiest guy around and he needs his wife now more than ever. He is not going against his wife by publishing a letter questioning the practices of the law firm she works at. Also, if Tim Wests exposes the Brestal Law Firm, his wife could get the AX and it would be blamed on the bad economy. We are skating on thin ice here my young and naive friend. My puppy dog knows more about politics in this town than you do.

What makes you think I did not try writing a letter to the editor before I began blogging? I certainly did and it was not published. Need I say more. And I can assure you there was no libel in my letter. Just facts and truth!

I am sorry to see that so many of you bloggers are so naive in understanding how this town works and the very long and deep relationship it has with the Naperville Sun.

So, Anonymous, you're saying the multiple instances I've seen of direct action taken from people with convincing arguments during the city council public forum was what? Me on some kind of acid trip? Sounds like you're just making more excuses for your inability to accomplish anything without someone doing it for you.

Whether or not the council listens to your conspiracy theories, you're broadcasted on the public access TV, and every reporter and member of the council audience will hear you. How is endlessly ranting here a better way to spread your misguided rants than speaking at a council meeting? This is just laziness of the highest degree.

There's an old phrase- Wish in one hand...

Anonymous on February 5, 2009 6:48 PM
My puppy dog knows more about politics in this town than you do.

________________________

"Anonymous", so much for civility huh! As host Chris told you a short time ago, "Frankly, I think they offered some good advice and you should listen to what they said instead of just lashing out against them." You should heed his advice. If you can't so much as approach anyone in person, or at least call with a question then you must not really be serious about affecting change.

Keep alienating everyone and you will succeed (not!). And as for your dog reference again, is this the same dog that speaks to you?

Good riddance puppy dog. Or as you so frequently say "Good Riddens" (sic)!!!

Keyboard Rambo,

I am spreading the word. Uncovering a cover-up. Trying to generate interest. Two bloggers agreed with me today and shed some new evidence.

The media does the same as I am doing. Are they lazy?

Blogging will be the wave of the future and be effective.

I have spent many hours researching before I published my facts.

What have you done KR? Absolutely nothing!

You are writing about an Anonymous person. How silly! What purpose are you serving on this blog site attacking an UNKNOWN?

Your bearings are truly loose.....your wires are truly fried.....you head is truly blown just as you indicated yourself.

May God help you.

Anonymous One and Keyboard Rambo:

There is no point in trying to discuss anything with a delusional, paranoid schizophrenic. Only the moderator can control the rants by limiting the postings - and that is some3thing that will likely never be done.

Re Parking Being Subsidized 2/3 @ 5:39pm:

Apologies for the delay in getting these posted. The following is how the new Main Street Promenade expansion parking fee was determined, according to City staff:

The policy considerations:

1- Downtown parking benefits from a shared arrangement such that when the offices are busy during the day, restaurants/bars are not and vice versa. The City has been studying how much parking is generated by downtown development annually since 2001 and the result is 2.04 parking spaces per 1000 square feet, regardless of use.

2- The city and business have partnered in providing parking for the downtown. The Central Parking Facility between Jefferson & Chicago, just east of Washington, was built via a cost sharing arrangement (50/50 split; SSA now expired). The Van Buren deck was also built as a cost share via an SSA. The Van Buren addition will be funded through a combination of the Naper Main/Towne Centre development, the city and the 1.5% Food and Beverage tax. Future parking structures will be funded via the 1.5% Food and Beverage tax, City dollars and, in the case of the Water Street project, via Tax Increment Financing funds.

3- The City encourages consolidated parking in the downtown to avoid a large number of small surface lots.

4- The Main Street Promenade (MSP) expansion properties will generate revenue for the City via the 1.5% Food and Beverage tax and will also pay into the SSA for the existing Van Buren deck.

The calculation:

The new MSP expansion has 64,347 sf of new space, which when multiplied by 2.04 parking spaces per 1000 sf, equates to a demand of 131 spaces.

Because part of the MSP expansion's parcel was already in the SSA for the Van Buren deck and was therefore exempt from providing new parking, the development received a credit of 13 spaces, leaving a net demand of 118 parking spaces.

Applying the policy considerations set out above, the demand was reduced by 50%, resulting in a demand of 59 spaces of public parking.

The developer is providing 34 spaces on-site, so that is removed from the funding obligation, resulting in a demand of 25 spaces of public parking.

The developer is therefore responsible for funding 25 spaces at the per space cost equal to the weighted historical average of the decks (CPF, Van Buren and Van Buren addition), which results in a total cost of $339,427.

Clearly, the 50% reduction was the major factor that reduced the parking fee-in-lieu amount to $339K.

There is a 5-page City memo that sets out the downtown parking fee-in-lieu formula as adopted by the City Council on October 21, 2008. Anyone who wants a copy of that memo can send me an email at fieselerr@naperville.il.us and I'll send it to them.

~Councilman Bob.

Councilman Bob,

Thanks for reporting back to us. Something is not adding up.

You recently told us the city calculated that the Promenade Expansion owed $1,200,000 for parking fees and that Dwight Yakley complained that the building would not be viable if he had to pay this much and it was reduced to $400,000 through negotiation.

Now you are telling us these same calculations using the same formulas adopted on Oct 21, 2008, only state that the buiding is required to pay $339,000 for parking fees-in-lieu.

Could you explain the contradictions in what you are trying to say to us now compared to before?

Further, maybe I can buy your theory that only 2.04 parking spots per 1000 sq. ft. are needed since the nightclubs and offices are busy at different times. That could potentially make sense. However, the Promenade Building is all office and retail except for Hugo's. And Hugos is usually packed for lunch. This being the case this building needs 4 spots per 1000 sq.ft. for its office/retail space and 10 spots per 1000 sq. ft. for Hugo's, unless its customers are willing to walk blocks away to where there may be empty nightclubs and unused parking.

But what I really don't understand is this 50% reduction that brings the needed parking requirement to 1.02 spots per 1000 sq. ft. from 2.04. This just seems ridiculous. Please try to explain this 50% reduction. What is it based on? How can it be justified? I am utterly confused!

A building 64,347(the city council minutes state 62,095) needs more than 65 parking spots unless it is half vacant. Most 1000 sq. ft. offices have a few employees and not only one. They also have customers. Same with retail space. You usually have a few employees and a few customers per 1000 sq.ft. More than one certainly per 1000 sq. ft. Restaurants and bars outside the downtown area are required to have 10 spots per 1000 sq. ft.

Hugo's alone needs 59 parking spots when it is fulled to capacity. The entire Promenade Buiding and Expansion are nearly 200,000 sq. ft. I understand your relaying numbers derived from formulas. However, I have a strong feeling that these formulas created and provided by City Staff are totally inaccurate and do not make any sense to anyone with common sense. Something is just not adding up.

I suspect when this Expansion is completed cars will be sitting on top of each other in the lot between Lou Malnatis and the Promenade. It is already packed with no chance of getting a parking spot no matter how many times your circle around it at the lunch hour. I know the Van Buren Deck has been expanded but I also understand a huge building is being built in front of it facing 3 streets that will utilize most of those parking spots since they are closest to it.

For many years, people have complained about a mess regarding downtown parking. I suspect it will be getting much worse if this new Promenade Expansion will only be required to come up with 59 parking spots.

At the least you appear to be stating City Staff made a major error when they originally calculated this building owes $1.2 million in fees-in-lieu-of parking.

Also since it cost $40,000 for each new parking spot not including land, why would an old historical average be used in computing cost of a parking spot. This is just a way to fleece the taxpayers by charging them the differnce between the historical cost and the current and real cost.

While I have a lot of respect for you CM Bob, I have little doubt that City Staff have devised formulas to fleece the Naperville Taxpayers of their hard earned dollars while benefitting the well connected developers. I just think it is unfair.

The taxpayers should not subsidize one single penny for developers worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Our downtown is unique and special. There is no other downtown quite like it. Developers should be honored to build in our downtown. When they want subsidies, I would show them the door and make sure it hits them on their way out.

And why if this new building only needs "25 spaces of public parking," did the City Council vote 6-3 to build a library deck with over 500 spots costing $19.9 million dollars without factoring in the cost of land or interest. When you factor in the cost of land and interest, this deck can easily cost 75 million dollars.

So this is what is so puzzling. We charge large buidings like the Barnes and Nobles and Promenade Expansion, $100,000 and $339,000 respectively, and say that is adequate, and then turn around and tell the taxpayers we need to build a library deck costing $75 million when factoring in interest and land.

I guess the taxpayer are paying the difference betwen what Dwight Yakley is paying and what it cost to build the library deck.

I am totally convinced that the Naperville Taxpayer is being fleeced...big time! I know you will not agree with me CM Bob, but that is how I feel. I believe the evidence also proves that.

Check Mate!

Can't wait to see what crazy schemes and conspiracy theories Anonymous uncovers next! Maybe how much the Centennial Beach season passes are FLEECING the taxpayers because anyone with a season pass is being subsidized by the city since they use the pool facilities far more than their season pass fee pays for!

CENTENNIAL BEACH SWIMMERS ARE SUBSIDIZED.

Thanks for putting this dude in his place, Councilman Bob, but I doubt this is the last we have heard of this FLEECING. He'll take your post and twist it in to something that supports his argument even though you could not have been more clear in how the parking fees were calculated.

Anonymous ONE, maybe our ridiculous friend will heed our advice for the next cause he attempts to champion. Maybe then someone will take him seriously.

Keyboard Rambo,

If you followed what CM Bob posted, he stated that 2.04 parking spots per 1000 were needed of which the developer only has to pay for 1.02.

This pretty much indicates the taxpayers have to subsidize the other 1.02 parking spots. Something I have been saying all along.

Also the City of Naperville is charging an average historical cost to build these parking spots for new buildings instead of the current cost. You can not build parking decks for what you built them 20 years ago. Why use a historical cost?

Another crucial items that CM Bob admits to indirectly is that the while developers are charged for one half of the actual historical cost, they are not charged the massive interest cost related to buidling these parking decks. Sometimes the interest cost over 30 years is twice the cost to build. Guess who is paying for the interest cost....you guessed it....THE RESIDENTIAL TAXPAYER.

Another blogger stated there is a 7500 dollar cost to maintain each parking lot over 30 years. He claimed he was an expert parking deck builder, been there and built a few. He seemed very credible. He also seemed to agree in the end that a parking spot costs $40,000 dollars and not his original estimate of 28k to 33k. It is hard not to agree since this estimate of 40k comes directly from the City as related to the Library Parking Deck. If his original estimates were true, this would have menat the city was "taken" on the cost of the library deck which came 2 years ago. Rather than smear the reputation of city officials, he chose to agree with them, in essence agreeing with me.

Finally, there is a massive opportunity cost to the land these parking decks are being built on. This opportunity cost such as the library lot is not being charged to the developers. It should be!

If the developer built undergroud, the land being used for parking could be sold for millions of dollars to developers who could build commercial and office buildings on this valuable land instead of "eye sore parking decks." These buildings would generate massive revenue to the city. Parking decks do not generate revenue. By all accounts they are a tax drain on the residential homeowners.

This is a FACT that is known. What is not known with certainty is the exact amount the Naperville Taxpayers are being FLEECED by developers in town. But it is certain they are being FLEECED.

I have a lot of respect for CM Bob. He is providing very helpful information that I have been using for my analyis.

If you recall, I said this is a LEGAL fleecing of the taxpayers and not an ILLEGAL fleecing of the taxpayers as the City Staff and City Council legalized all the SUBSIDIZATION.

If you read CM Bob's post carefully you would understand what he is saying.

If you read CM Bob's earlier posts, you would understand the HUGE Barnes and Noble Building only contributed 100,000 dollars for parking or an equivalent of 2.5 spots based on the current rate excluding land, interest and maintenance costs. CM Bob is not in a position to tell you the taxpayers were fleeced on this building. He is not going to admit he may have voted wrong. He is a politician who may need to be re-elected one day. BUT I WILL TELL YOU WHAT HE WON'T TEL YOU......THE BARNES AND NOBLE WAS THE FLEECING OF THE CENTURY IN NAPERVILLE.

No offense, KR, but I think this debate and discussion is a little over your head. You have never provided any facts, research or analysis of your own. You appear to be incapable. Common sense does not seem to be one of your strenghts.

For a few days we have had quite a few bloggers providing intelligent information, to get a better grasp of the situation. As this informtion is provided by experts or at least individuals who call themselves "experts", I am incoporating it in my anaylsis.

Again, you have attempted to mock the messenger. Let the moderator note that. Let the moderator sees who attacks the messenger instead of the message creating unnecessary hostility on this blog site. I will let you slide this one time. Next time I will wash your mouth with soap so you can get it.

I urge the Moderator not to post comments that serve no use or purpose. If you reread KB's post it is nothing but a PERSONAL ATTACK. That seems to be the limit of his abilities and capabilities.

Let us go to ZERO TOLERANCE moderator as you suggested. I think that is a great idea since some bloggers really don't have the intellect to differentiate between a messenger and a message. You need to teach them how to differentiate by not posting personal attacks.

If they get rejected a few times, they may catch on. Otherwise we will be back where we were a few days ago. I know you don't like to go there, Moderator, so why let someone open the door. Shut the door while you still can. Make it easy on everyone who wants this blog site to be credible and reputablde place to exchange ideas and learn.

------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. Just for the record despite certain disagreements I may have with Councilman Bob, he will always have my vote in any election. He is a man of impeccable character with great credibility. He is known to have an awesome reputation in Naperville.

Please point out a single personal attack I have made in this thread.

Calling me personally "ridiculous" is a personal attack.

Calling my message ridiculous is NOT a personal attack.

I just don't seem to think you understand the difference despite how many times I have tried to explain it you. I believe the Moderator has asked you and other several times to stop attacking the messenger. How many more times do you expect him to tell you before he goes to ZERO TOLERANCE which I have no doubt he will eventually go to in due time? Remember this is not his main job to referee between bloggers and he is not getting paid any extra for this duty. So lets make his job easy so he sticks with it.

Focus on the message and not the messenger and you will get a little further on this blog site and may develop some credibility.

Dig up facts to refute what I am saying. Challenge my analysis with your own numbers and calculations. Are you capable?

On the other thread, I posted how I visited Executive Director Patti Roberts of the Downtown Naperville Alliance to obtain crucial information for my analysis. Who have you visited besides your keyboard lately? Seriously!

All you do is hide behind your keyboard attacking bloggers. Where is that going to get you? People will eventually see through you and see the truth. Why make a fool of yourself in the process?

Promenade, I don't think you have any right to complain about what other people are saying when you are attacking Bob the Builder for no reason in the other post you just wrote that I am not going to publish. You can't have it both ways. If you want others to treat you with respect, treat them with respect in return. You are very disrespectful to people who don't agree with you.

Sorry, but "ridiculous" or maybe even "absurd" are the only ways I can even begin to describe how militant you are about these conspiracy theories that Councilman Bob put to rest, Chris doesn't think are newsworthy, and two people in the other thread (disregarding my own commercial building experience) where you're ranting about this have told you that you are wrong.

You disregard or insult anyone who disagrees with you, and instead choose flat out repetition as your method of "debate" to raise awareness of this imaginary "fleecing". I know you're upset that no one took your Palestinian freedom fighting seriously and now you're all excited thinking you've uncovered some massive underground scam orchestrated by Dwight Yackley and the other members of the Naperville Illuminati... But it's just not the case.

The city does what it can to help out the downtown area so Naperville has a thriving hub of activity for its residents to come get taxed while buying clothing in a boutique, drinks or food at a restaurant, cigars at the tobacco shop, etc. I'm sure the downtown area also helps property value! Would you really rather the city council cut the cord on downtown Naperville? Which would you honestly prefer, a city with a great downtown area that the city council helps out, or something like downtown McHenry which is little more than a pub, car wash, and post office? Or something like Aurora with a casino, a few bars, and some run down shops?

You can't have it both ways.

Again, as myself and countless other people have told you in a number of threads, no one has a problem with you. What people have a problem with is your "my way or the highway" method of "debate" where there are two side of things: What you think, and what the "fools" think. If you don't want to be ridiculed, stop making yourself the object of ridicule. This is a pretty fun blog site with a lot of great people on it. It is consistently you, and you alone, who insists on embarking on endless extreme and repetitive rants that no reasonable person would ever take seriously, then making extremely disrespectful and below the belt remarks about anyone "foolish" enough to dare disagree with you.

Furthermore, the entire budget Naperville has been working on so far has been based on a growth economy, with people constantly buying and building. Of course there is going to be budget shortfalls as the city shifts gears to maintenance mode. What's done is done, the parking garages are built (or being built and already paid for), and aside from when there's a festival in town, when was the last time you ever had trouble finding a parking spot? I eat dinner all the time in downtown Naperville, and even at its absolute busiest I only need to ever loop through a parking garage or go around a block twice.

So really, what's the big deal about these 59 parking spaces? If you hate getting "fleeced" in Naperville so much, why not sell your house and move to Aurora? You could probably buy a whole hand full of houses there for what your old one is worth... And you'll never have to deal with "fleecing" again to support a vibrant downtown area. You seem convinced Naperville is a sinking ship, so why not get out while the gettin' is good?

You seem convinced Naperville is a sinking ship, so why not get out while the getting is good?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Naperville has an $11.5 million dollar operating budget deficit.

Naperville police and fire pensions have a $61.5 million pension deficit.

I am not the one who is saying Naperville is sinking. The numbers from City Officials are stating Naperville is sinking. California towns with similar numbers have already filed for bankruptcy. What makes you think Naperville is IMMUNE? Who told you Naperville is IMMUNE? Circuit City was around for a 100 years and filed bankruptcy and is currently shutting all stores down. Nortel which was once mighty filed for bankruptcy. California is threatening bankruptcy if they don't get Federal help immediately. They can't print money like the Feds. We in Naperville are also not authorized to print money. If you can not print money, you either tax the residents to the hilt or file for bankruptcy when you can not make ends meet. Those are the only 2 options.

Most pension deficits are guaranteed by the taxpayers. The Detroit Free Press reported yesterday in an article that most State of Illinois pension systems lost 30% of their value the last 18 months.

The taxpayers in Illinois and Naperville have to make up this loss. The Detroit Free Press estimated that Illinois residents will be taxed for the nearly 4 billion dollars to compensate for these deficit losses.

I hope you will be happy when you start paying double or triple the taxes you have paid in the past to reimburse these pension funds for public officials and public employees. I am sure it is OK with you but I doubt it is OK with most Naperville residents who are struggling to make ends meet in this tough economy while trying to hold on to their homes.

I am sure your 401k got beat up like everyone else's. Do you know who is going to reimburse your 401k for what you lost personally?

I bet you have not thought about that KR.

This is just further subsidization of our public officials. I personally think this is UNFAIR that taxpayers take a beating on their 401ks but have to make up the money lost in public pension funds through investments they have no control over.

The public officials need to take a bath as we taxpayers take a bath. It was their money and they made risky investments and lost the money they managed. Why should I have to pay for their mistakes?
They had a choice to keep their money in safe Bank CDs. But they took risks for higher investments and now the taxpayers have to take it on the chin for our public officials. It is amazing and unfair!

In the real world, the majority would agree with me. Here we have a herd of people who rubber stamp each other without thinking. They are clueless as to what is happening in this world.

You, KR, appear to have no ability to think out of the box or independently. You are a sheep following the Shepard. No wonder you can not debate anyone.

Find another hobby besides keyboarding since you provide nothing to the debate.

Fed Up, I hear you and I agree with you. I am evaluating my options.

Promenade, what needs to happen for this site to be somewhere where people are comfortable coming to discuss things is people need to listen to what others say and not call them names or ridicule their credentials and information. You keep accusing everyone else of attacking you, but practically every post you've submitted lately has done the same thing. What I would like you to do is to stick to discussing your ideas. If you need to respond to something someone else says, tell them why their ideas are incorrect without doing it in a mean way. Stay on the subject and don't bring Napergate into every issue. When you write a post, let someone respond to you instead of posting three or four times in a row saying basically the same thing. Talk about other people's ideas, not the people themselves. The way you've been going after this parking thing is turning everyone off from discussing it with you. A few people who know what they are talking about posted and you were mean to them. I'm sick of you chasing people away from this site with tactics like that. These are just basic rules of civilized discussion in society. I'd rather tell you this privately but you don't give me any way to communicate with you so it has to be in public. If you can play nice, as I said in an earlier post, people will play nice with you. Treat people with respect and they will respect you. The same rules apply to everyone of course but you are the center of the controversy. I'm not going to approve anything that does not abide by these rules. Unfortunately it has come to this. And to everyone else, if Promenade can abide by these rules, I ask you to let it rest also.

As I drive through Naperville or any other downtown district, I never would have considered street parking or the small parking lots in town to be owned specifically by the businesses on that block, but rather by the city, being part of the street and the city's amenities just as the river walk is. The city does what it needs to do to support the business it draws in and what it needs to do to get people downtown. I can see that the businesses should be responsible in part, but what does it take to drive some of these businesses out of town? I wonder how profitable, say, Pottery Barn, Eddie Bauer, Ann Taylor, Barnes & Noble are in downtown Naperville as opposed to Oak Brook or Geneva commons or such, where parking is more plentiful? Is there a benefit to Naperville's downtown to subsidize this parking when these chains could probably easily pull out if things were better for them elsewhere? I also imagine that the independent businesses/restaurants might have trouble absorbing a larger cost and perhaps never would have considered downtown Naperville if that was the case and opted for something more along the lines of Wheaton Town Square/Danada or a strip mall that didn't have these type of issues with a downtown situation? What would Naperville's downtown be like if businesses pulled out or never developed in the first place? You can see the difference driving through Wheaton, their downtown development has largely been older and dated shops and now upscale and expensive condos with walking distance to the train while the upscale retail established themselves out of the downtown in Danada. That could easily be Naperville, as well. These established retail and restaurant businesses in downtown Naperville must experience some difficulty being located here rather than a newer upscale "small mall" and perhaps they deserve some concessions with regard to the way they have come in to the already established downtown, making it stronger and less of a dated group of shops as some of the surrounding downtown districts can be.

By ANN E. on February 8, 2009 8:07 PM
These established retail and restaurant businesses in downtown Naperville must experience some difficulty being located here rather than a newer upscale "small mall" and perhaps they deserve some concessions with regard to the way they have come in to the already established downtown, making it stronger and less of a dated group of shops as some of the surrounding downtown districts can be.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Outside of the bars and some restuarants most downtown businesses are struggling. I see musical chairs going on with stores coming in and stores leaving. I see very few customers.

Most of the downtown businesses need some concessions. But the concessions downtown should be coming from the wealthy landlords and not the taxpayers. A business that has high rent, has a high chance of failure. A business that has low rent has a low chance of failure.

I had called some downtown landlords before the collapse and rents were very high. I had called the old Olive Branch location that is now a Sun Glass Depot and they wanted 35 dollars a square foot plus real estate taxes. You had to even go up 4 steps for that lousy location behind Starbucks. BTW the lady in the basement selling clothes that replaced the bookstore is lquidating and closing shop.

I talked to the Antique Shop on Jefferson Ave. by the Subway and he stated the landlord wanted to raise his rent from 10k to 20k per month. He could not afford that for 6000 sq.ft. and closed down shop. That converts to 40 dollars a sq. ft. The landlord later came down to 18k but that was still not affordable so he did not change his mind. That was 36 dollars per square foot which was still unaffordable. The landlord ran his own tenant out of business and he now has a vacancy that has been empty for several months. He is getting nothing instead of 10k or 12k per month. I hope he is happy. I hope he has to wait 10 years until his national tenant finally arrives. Sorry, but I don't like bully and greedy landlords who screw around with long term Mom and Pop shops. They made downtown Naperville and now we throw them on the street to get that elusive national tenant.

I remember there was a computer game shop at 22 E. Chicago Ave owned by a Chinese or Korean Lady. Edgemark who manages that plaza told her the landlord wanted to double her rent from $18 dollars to $36. She could not affored it so Edgemark relocated her business to the Butera Plaza on Chicago Ave. for $16 plus CAM and Real Estate Taxes. They also manage that plaza so they were able to help the poor lady out who felt like a truck hit her when she got her notice of an increase. I know of many other examples.

The problem downtown is the landlords got very greedy. They thought they could get $40-$50 a sq. ft. and let the leases of their tenants expire and chose vacancies in hopes of hitting the jackpot with a National Tenant who would pay those ridiculous and outrageous rents they were demanding.

By subsidizing the landlords downtown, we are allowing them to act in this reckless manner towards their tenants. Most of the landlords are simply greedy....there are exceptions.

Dwight Yakely has asked us for concessions each times he builds a structure. He had asked that his $1.2 million parking-in-lieu-fee that was computed by City Staff based on his parking requirements be reduced to $400,000 for his latest Promenade Expansion. According to CM Bob it was reduced from $1.2 million to $400,000 in a vote by City Council. Does this multi-millionaire really need the help? I don't think so. His tenants need help but not him. Did he pass the savings down to his tenants? I highly doubt it.

If he was not successful he could not build a second and third building. If his buildings were not viable because of parking he would have collapsed financially.

Now if there is going to subsidization downtown, it needs to be provided by the landlords some of whom are worth over a 100 million dollars. Not the residential taxpayers.

The city is doing much for the downtown that it does not do for any other part of town. Tonight while driving through I saw city crews sweeping the sidewalks in front of the same stores. I saw them sweeping the same exact sidewalks yesterday. It is ridiculous. They don't need to be swept daily. We are paying for this daily sweeping of the sidewalks with our tax dollars.

If these businesses are slow and want reduced taxes, they should ask their employees or bouncers or whomever to try to keep the sidewalks in front of their stores clean. That is how it is done everywhere else in town. They should shovel the sidewalks in front of their own stores just like everywhere else in town. Who shovels the sidewalks for the residents? The city? No, the residents and we don't even have strong empolyees like the bouncers in those bars and nightclubs. We don't have any employees in most cases and break our backs shovelling our own snow. Some of us die of heart attacks each year while shoveling especially after the age of 60.

It would make more sense if the City of Naperville would shovel all resident's home who are over 65 and help us avoid heart attacks instead of businesses that have 300 pound bouncers that can bench press 450 pounds.

I just think it is unfair that taxpayer money has to used in this way in the downtown area. As I said earlier we are wiping their butts and blowing their noses for them at a great expense to us taxpayers. They need to step up to the plate and reduce taxes on all of us by carrying their load.

The landlords need to pay for the parking in full. It was determined that the Promendae Expansion needed 118 spots. Why are we going with a 50-50 formula of subsidization where they only have to pay for 59 parking spots and we the taxpayers have to pay for the other 59 parking spots? They should pay for all 118 parking spots and be thankful they only need to provide 118 spots where every other place in the city would have to pay for 310 parking spots for a 62,095 sq. ft. building.

I don't believe in subsidizing wealthy landlords. The Promenade Expansion could not have been built elsehwere. It had to be built right where it was built. We gave the man $800,000 dollars after reducing his parking requirement in half using the 50-50 formula devised by city officials.

Even if everyone on this blog site wants the downtown subsidized that is your right. However, I am against the subsidization of the downtown. That is my feeling and opinion. I am entitled to it.

I don't have to agree with the majority. Many times the majority is wrong and one individual is right. I feel I am right and you guys are all wrong. I feel you are all increasing the chances that one day the City of Naperville will have to file for bankruptcy. I am trying to decrease the chance that the city of Naperville has to file for bankruptcy.

Many bloggers seem to think it could never happen here. The numerous cities in California thought it could never happen there. They thought this real estate bubble was real and began paying police and fire fighters $120,000 and upwards and increased pensions to 90% of final salary. Well, no one is getting a pension and the cities are BANKRUPT. Is this what you good folks want for Naperville? Do you folks really think Naperville is IMMUNE from BANKRUPTCY?

Sorry but Naperville is not IMMUNE and if it continues in its same path of SELF-DESTRUTION it will have to file for BANKRUPTCY sooner than later.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. Notice Moderator, I did not attack any single blogger or even name a blogger. Please make sure they address my message and not me the messenger. I honestly think they are so bothered by my MESSAGE which I truly believe in, that they subconsciously begin attacking me without realizing it. Please try to observe who starts the personal attacks. I never do! I am simply interested in the issues. I know it is hard for you to side with one blogger over the majority, but the truth be said this one blogger never ATTACKS ANYONE FIRST. Again, I urge you to go for ZERO TOLERANCE. I would not be interested in ZERO TOLERANCE if I was interested in attacking others. Not one other person has come in support of you ZERO TOLERANCE SUGGESTION. WHY? My suspician is they enjoy and thrive on the personal attacks. They do not want them stopped. Please keep a keen eye and observe who starts what. It is all in black and white right on your blog site. Thank you!

I understand that some of the downtown developers and landlords may be wealthy, worth hundreds of millions? I don't know, I suppose that could be investigated but I imagine it would be hard to find out what I and my business are personally worth at this time if I didn't want anyone to know that. Perhaps this is an overstatement for effect, as saying that Circuit City has been in business for a hundred years? If you count the "Wards" years, it's been fifty at the most. I understand that some might think that it's the landlords or developers responsibility to pay for everything downtown that supports their businesses/the square feet that they own, but as business owners they have been operating their businesses under what the market will bear and taking the risk of investment that all businesses take with their investments. My business is the same, I take the risk or else I would continue to work for someone else all these years, getting a paycheck and benefits from the business owner with less risk than the business owner takes with more risk. If the market no longer will bear the rent levels, then business will leave and rents will re-set, or the lessees will request a re-set. The risk with any negotiation or market change is that the business that vitalizes the downtown will head for different square feet with less headaches. It's a give and take with options on both sides and each side has the right and responsibility to decide what is fair and just and what will create income and wealth. The city comes in with incentives to draw sought after business when in has a desire to have a more affluent and diverse retail/restaurant option present for the downtown that would possibly never choose an older venue with difficult access and parking issues than found elsewhere in many suburban locations. Unlike a larger metropolitan city (say, Chicago) it has been historically the norm to head out to more open space for these businesses with cheaper square feet in the suburbs. So what is the draw, what is the payback for Naperville to want to keep it's downtown as it is, with these businesses located in the midst of current culture and activity, rather than a downtown that offers less, possibly only a few businesses and housing within walking distance to the train as a true bedroom community does?

Where among this is the desire and the right for those such as myself that take the risk to run my own business with part of the motivation to do that to build wealth, to ask for fees that the market will bear? Is it another bloggers right to set these fees, or is it the city and lessee business responsibility to decide what will work for their business and downtown and adjust accordingly knowing the risk on the other side of that decision? If we take the risk and the market will bear a higher level of income, isn't that our right? If there are financial difficulties with this that the lessees can't absorb, they must make a change and prompt the rents to re-set, no? Free enterprise. If the city is having trouble with the incentives, it should also re-set knowing that with that decision comes the risk of losing the type of business it has worked so hard to draw into the downtown. I wouldn't make those that take the risk initially to be the total bad guys here, if things aren't working negotiate with them. If they leave town that's a risk one must take. If their property sits empty that's a risk they take. If they can get the income they ask for, that's a risk the business that wants to be in their square footage must take, or find something that pencils out better for them. Nothing is static, business always cycles.

AnnE.

I am not 100% sure I understand what you are saying, but if you are saying rents should be set between a landlord and a tenant with little interference from government, I agree with you.

Usually, if landlords are overcharging, vacancies will develop quickly. Landlords will adjust prices downwards. If occupancy is 100% landlords will adjust prices upwards. The market takes care of the situation with little interference from government. I think that is how it should be.

However, when government interferes to a great extent, rents are no longer controlled by the market forces.

Landlords can charge much higher rents, if the city of Naperville provides services in the downtown that they do not provide in other parts of Naperville. In downtown, they sweep sidewalks, snowplow sidewalks, put up Christmas lights, provide 10 times the police security they provide in other parts of town, subsidize parking for the landlords, and the list is really endless.

Thus the government with residential taxpayer money is making the downtown more attractive which allows landlords to charge artificially higher rents than they would be without government help. Thus the landlords are enriched at mostly taxpayer expense.

The one that bothers me the most is the very expensive subsidized parking. I have explained it in ways that are complex and people may have misunderstood.

Let us try a different way. The only new growth I see in the downtown that is of significance is the Promenade Expansion and the building across the street from it on Main Street. Both are yet to be built.

However our city council decided we needed more parking to accomodate these 2 buildings. They built a 300 parking deck for a little over $9 million across the street from the PE attached to the old Van Buren Deck. They also voted 6-3 to build a deck at the library that they may have to delay due to economic conditions and/or a lack of funding. The library deck without factoring in land is budgeted for 19.9 million dollars.(According to CM Furstenau the residents will have to absorb 1 million in SUNK COSTS due to this delay. BTW his legal costs to date are $895,000 to the taxpayer and the trial has not even started. We the taxpayers are taking it up the WAZOO from so many angles.)

We are told by City Experts that these buildings only need 2.04 parking spots per 1000 sq. ft. We are told due to some city formula known as 50-50 that their parking needs or costs are reduced to 1.02 spots per 1000 sq. ft.

We are told that the PE only needs 24 parking spots since it is providing 35 of its own. Imagine that a 3 story building nearly 65,000 sq. ft. according to CM Bob needing only 24 spots.

For arguments sake, let us assume the building that is being built to envelope the new Van Buren Deck is also about 65,000 sq. ft and only needs 24 spots.

Let us assume this building as the Promenade Expasion will also be charged 400k for parking. Thus the 2 buildings which require this additional or incremental parking are being charged $800,000.

The only other buidling I am aware of to be developed in the future is the Water St. Building which will have city subsidized parking in a different area of the downtown so let us set that one aside for now.

Let me see if I can understand or comprehend this. We need 48 parking spots for these 2 buildings, we are charging them $800,000 and we are building for them 2 parking decks with 800 parking spots at a cost of 29 million dollars not counting interest, land, and maintenance. When you factor interest cost, land, and maintenance the cost will easily be over 100 million dollars. This assumes we can float municipal bonds at 5% as "Been There.....Built a Few" suggested. If we can't and we have to borrow money at 10% in the open market the price will easily be over $200 million. I am sure "Been There....Built a Few" would agree with me.

What the taxpayers have to understand, is the $800k we are collecting from these new developers will not pay for these new parking decks that will cost us $29 million initially and at least $100 million over a 30 year period.

And I have to wonder why are we building an additional 800 parking spots, if these 2 new building only need 48 additional parking spots? Where are the other 32 3-story buildings going to be built that need the other 752 parking spots since each building of this nature only needs 24 spots according to city officials assuming they provide 35 on site.

Most bloggers have mentioned there has been plenty of parking in downtown before these latest additions and planned additions. I have noticed excess parking myself. So I am speaking of additional building space as compared to additional parking space.

The scenario I see is that we don't really need all this parking or that we need it and we are not being told the truth as to how much parking these buildings really REQUIRE. I think it is a little bit of both.

But in the end we the residential taxpayers have to pay for almost all these parking spots. How far is an $800,000 contribution going to go towards paying for $100 million in parking?!?!?!?

Assume the bottom floor of these 2 buildings are retail generating sales tax. Assume the 2nd and 3rd floors are office and do not generate sales tax. Assume you have 43,000 sq. ft of retail space for these 2 building. Assume each sq. ft. can generate $300 per sq. ft. in annual retail sales. Assume the 2nd and 3rd floors have 87,000 sq. ft. of office space that normally do not generate sales tax.

That is $12,900,000 in retail sales. Since we collect 1.5% in a special sales tax for parking, this generates about $200,000 per year in sales tax for these parking decks. Over 30 years, that is $6,000,0000 dollars.

If you combine this $6 million with the $800,000 we originally received, we collect $6,800,000 over 30 years to pay for garages costing us at least $100 million over 30 years. Who is paying the difference or shortfall of $93,200,000? You guessed it.....the RESIDENTIAL TAXPAYER.

Yes, there is shared parking in the downtown. Yes, we had adequate parking before these latest expansions. Therefore incremental expansion has to pay for incremental parking. Without the additional building expansions we would not need the additional parking decks. Simple Logic 101!

The only way the city numbers would make sense is if they were planning to demolish 16 blocks of residential homes and convert them to commercial 3 story buildings. If that is the case, the residents need to be aware and take notice that their homes will be CONDEMNED SOON!

In the meantime until these 16 blocks of residential blocks are converted to commerical buildings, everyone get your check books ready for your May 1 and Sept 1 real estate tax bills.

Let's get a few things straightened out right from the beginning. I do not agree with Promenade.

#1 - I stand by my earlier comment about the cost for a parking deck being in the area of $28k to $30k. This is based on a moderately efficient design. Highly efficient designs could cost even less. The following link is to an industry source that shows the average costs for parking decks in a variety of cities across the US. http://www.kerkstra.com/download/Carl%20Walker%20Newsletter.pdf

#2 I stand by my earlier comment about budgeting for capital maintenance at $250 per space per year. Having done this kind of work for more than a few years on more than a few parking garages, I believe I have a pretty good handle on this.

#3 When the cost of money is at 10%, companies (or cities) do not borrow money for things they would like to have. Parking garages pretty much fall in the "like to have category".

#4 Selling municipal bonds is not the same as taking out a mortgage. People buy them because they offer a more stable, lower risk investment that is often tax free. Naperville's bond rating was rated as AAA by Standard and Poor's Rating Services and Moody's Investors Service for the past 13 years. The following link wil show Illinois bond trading - a search for Naperville will show bonds being traded today at a 5% rate - of the 42 trades listed, none were for bonds with a rate higher than 5% and some were as low as 4.5%

#5 Many buildings that have retail space or service oriented space on upper floors generate sales taxes. The Barnes an Nobel building is just one that comes quickly to mind. To assume that no sales tax would be generated by upper floor uses is just not valid.

#6 While office space per say is not a sales tax generator, the people who come and work in those offices, particularly in an environment like downtown Naperville, increase the amount of sales and sales tax generated by local businesses. They buy lunch, clothing, books, etc. in the area where they work - because it is convenient for them to do so. Many times they are from outside of the community and so add to the local economy while putting very little demand on services.

#7 In the case of the library parking lot and a possible parking deck there at some time in the future: there is no point to making an argument for including land costs in that equation. It is highly unlikely that the city would ever sell that land to any buyer. That land is going to be used for parking and parking only. A parking garage there would maximize the amount of parking available in the smallest amount of space. There is no other effective use for that land.

#8 Start charging for parking. At $1.00 per hour, using an average 60% occupancy rate at 10 hours per day, the 1250 spaces in question would generate roughly $2.7 million per year in revenue. if the occupancy goes to 75%, the revenue goes to more than $3.4 million per year.

Well - there you go - that's my spiel - take or leave it - I don't care. The sky is not falling, the world is not coming to an end. Few, if any, homeowners will lose their homes because of the possible construction of a parking garage downtown. However, more than a few may lose their homes (unfortunately) because they bought a home they couldn't really afford - but that's a whole different situation.

One last closing thought - even if the $93 Million is right (and I do not believe it is), that translates into $77.50 per year for 30 years for each of 40,000 homes.

Here is a simple question:

Councilman Bob is stating that the new Promenade Expansion only needs 25 parking spots for its 64,347 sq. ft.

Let us assume this Naper Main/Town Centre is roughly the same size and also needs 25 parkings spots. For those who are not familiar, the NM/TC building will envelope the Van Buren Deck addition when it is completed later this year.

The Van Buren Deck Addition was just completed this last month and bings 317 additional parking spots to downtown Naperville according to the City of Naperville Web Site.

The question I have is if these 2 new buildings will only need 50 parking spots according to the way the city staff calculate the requirement for parking, and this one deck provides 317 new parking spots, WHY DO WE NEED TO WASTE $19,900,000 BUILDING A LIBRARY DECK NOW OR LATER.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

(Been There....Built a Few needs to understand with all due respect that this $19.9 million for 500 parking spots which translates to $40,000 per spot is a City Calculation and NOT my number out of a rabbit's hat. So if he feels he can build these spots for $30,000 each he needs to approach the City of Naperville IMMEDIATELY and save us 5 million dollars while hopefully making a few bucks for himself. Again, his issue on the cost should be with the City of Naperville which arrived at the numbers and not me who is just publicizing city numbers. BTW, I agree with BT-BAF that the cost should only be $30,000 per spot as I did some research which confirms what he is stating. Thus some developer overcharged the City of Naperville $5 million on the library deck because someone probably in the City is sleeping at his or her desk and not obtaining COMPETITIVE BIDS.)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

These 2 buildings according to City Experts will only need 50 parking spots. This new Deck provides 317 parking spots or 267 more spots than necessary. No new buildings besides these 2 are in the pipeline except for the Water Street Building which will have its own parking as usual mostly subsidized by the taxpayers.

Maybe based on the information I am providing, Bob the Builder, Been There...Built a Few and/or Moderator Chris can express their opinion as to whether we even need the library deck. My opinion is we don't need it and we should save the taxpayers 20 million dollars in building costs, $18,651,157 million in finance costs based on 5% for 30 years, and $3,750,000 on maintenance based on $7500 to maintain each parking spot. This would be a total cost savings of $42,401,157.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. I have used the city's cost to build and "Been There...Built a Few's" interest rate cost of only 5% for financing and maintenance costs of $7500 dollar per parking spot for 30 years. This is a cost of $848 per household based on 50,000 homeowners using "Been There....Built a Few" and City of Naperville estimates for just one PARKING DECK. That is just an unnecessary waste of money for a parking deck we absolutely don't need. That is my 2 cents worth!

Let us save the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Make sure you get the numbers right - that's $250 per space per year for 30 years - $7500 per space. Not $7500 per space per year for 30 years.

As to whether or not any parking is needed, that is outside of my area of expertise.

My apologies - I left out the link for the bond trading history from my earlier post.

http://illinois.municipalbonds.com/

With all due respect, where were you when the city held multiple workshops, meetings, and public forums when this was all being proposed and planned years ago? I understand building a new parking deck has you extremely angry, but don't you realize you're a little late to the party protesting it? It seems like you're just now making all these new discoveries that taxpayers help pay for the city to build things which were proposed, discussed, and most importantly voted on years ago.

The city did extensive research before even proposing the construction of this new parking deck. Your opinion is that Naperville doesn't need the new library parking deck. The opinion of the city council, all the experts consulted, residents surveyed, and feedback gained during the various meetings before the construction was approved by the council differs from yours.

The cost of everything goes up over time. The hundreds of billions and potentially trillions the US government is just giving away isn't doing anything to increase the value of the US dollar. I'd prefer to build the parking deck as soon as possible, so Naperville can be sure to lock in the $20 million price tag before the price of concrete, labor, machinery, and everything else goes up... and when the parking is sorely needed that same parking deck could cost us $30 (or even more) million to build.

Either way, regardless of how much you want to rage against the machine, I think you're really wasting your time and energy protesting something which was already thoroughly researched and approved by the city. Like Been There - Built a Few posted, even assuming your astronomical number of $93 million is correct, anyone who seriously is going to lose their house and go directly to the poor house without passing GO an collecting $200 over $77 a year for the next 30 years have way over-extended themselves anyway and if it wasn't the parking garage it would be the next time any unexpected expense appears that would lead to their ultimate financial ruin.

If $6.50 a month in taxes is seriously anyone's breaking point, they've got much bigger problems than parking garages.

By Been There - Built a Few on February 9, 2009 10:14 PM
Make sure you get the numbers right - that's $250 per space per year for 30 years - $7500 per space. Not $7500 per space per year for 30 years.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I believe I got the numbers right.

$7500 per parking spot for 30 years for 1000 spots is $7,500,000.

Since the library is half of that I arrived at $3,750,000 for maintenance for 30 years.....not one year.

My $42,401,157 is based on $250 dollar per space per year or $7500 for the full year just as you suggested

I also agree with you that it would border on insanity if Naperville borrowed money at 10% to build this garage as the interest costs would double over 30 years.

Your site indicates that old Municipal Bonds are trading at 5% on the bond market. And Naperville has some of these. These bonds are older bonds issued when times were good. I believe they are discounted which makes the effective rate of 5% in essence higher.

I honestly do not feel Naperville can hit the market for a new 20 million dollar bond right now for a library deck with it having an $11.5 million budget deficit and a $61.5 million police and fire pension deficit.

Most investors are smart and they invest in cities and states that have positive cash flows.....not negative cash flows.

Naperville was once a Triple AAA city. I think when the new ratings come out it will not remain Triple AAA unless it can lick the deficit and reduce expenses. Do you know when Naperville was lasted rated AAA? Are you sure it was not downgraded after revealing its deficit? Rating companies are usually very quick to DOWNGRADE to protect the investors. They want to minimize any liability from outdated or old ratings. Investors depend on them for accuracy and full disclosure.

Also common sense indicates if you can't make ends meet, you can not afford a $42,401,157 project. How can you pay for it if you have a deficit? Why would a city want to have a $13 million annual deficit instead of an $11.5 million deficit???

The amount the Promenade Expansion is contributing of $400,000 is less than 1% of what is needed for this parking deck. It won't help much.

I understand either city officials cancelled this project or about to cancel the project. The majority realize they were wrong and want to cancel. Dick Furstenau is strongly dissenting and does not want to cancel because the city will have to absorb "one million in sunk costs" on the project.

No one wants to take a hit on "sunk costs" but the city was living on borrowed money and had no rainy day fund. The city of Naperville is in serious trouble financially and my belief is it will eat the million in "sunk costs" instead of trying to swallow the $42,401,157 ELEPHANT!

Bottom line my research strongly indicates they never needed this project. Therefore it should be cancelled and those who made the mistakes should pay back the taxpayers the one million they squandered on "sunk costs."

Our city officials are no different than the residents who bought homes they could not afford. They were all acting irresponsibly.

Keyboard Rambo,

My original calculation based on 10% for 1250 spots that Mr. Dwight Yakley's 3 buildings needed was $193,000,000 and not $93,000,000. I believe BT-BAF accidentally left off the one. With maintenance costs based on 7500 per spot for 30 years, that number rises to $202,375,000.

Since Mr. Yakley only owns one fourth of the downtown the total cost for the entire downtown would be $809,500,000 based on each parking spot costing 40k.

Thus the cost to each taxpayer would be $4,047.5 over 30 years or $134.92 just for Mr. Yakley buildings. For the full downtown it would be 4 times that or $539.67. I think this is a significant number. Taxpayers have to pay many other taxes and they all add up.

If you go with a 5% interest cost instead of 10% interest cost, this $539.67 per resident per year can be reduced by $176 per resident per year or to $363.67.

I am using 50,000 households in Naperville which I believe is more accurate than BT_BAF who is only using 40,000 households. This brings the price down when the total cost is divided over more households. I believe the Moderator can verify there are over 50,000 households in Naperville.

Again, I believe BT_BAF just forgot the 1 in front of 93,000,000 and also forgot to incorporate his own maintenance charge of $7500 dollars per spot for the entire 30 years.

Anyway you slice it $539.67 based on 10% interest or $363.67 based on 5% interest, I believe this is a lot that is being asked from the taxpayer.

I am a strong believer that the landlords who were benefitting from 40-50 dollars per square foot in rent should be paying this full cost for the parking decks.

Just for the record, I called 2 city council members and visited Ms. Roberts from the Downtown Naperville Alliance to try to stop this project. They all wanted to proceed at the time and told me there was nothing that would change their minds. I think the sentiment is now changing and they don't want to proceed as they smelled the coffee. You can only do so much if no one is listening.

I think city officials and city council members realized they made a mistake on this deck. I am willing to guess it will not be built any time in the near future and possibly never.

By Been There - Built a Few on February 9, 2009 8:05 PM
Let's get a few things straightened out right from the beginning. I do not agree with Promenade.

#5 Many buildings that have retail space or service oriented space on upper floors generate sales taxes. The Barnes an Nobel building is just one that comes quickly to mind. To assume that no sales tax would be generated by upper floor uses is just not valid.

********************************************************************

While your point is very valid, it does not invalidate my point.

Just as some upper floor tenants generate sales tax and you gave an excellent example, many lower floor tenants do not generate sales tax.

For example banks in the downtown are on the 1st floor and do not generate sales tax. And there are many banks while only one Barnes and Nobles in the downtown. B @ N is somewhat of an exception because it is a 2 story retailer with a ground floor and an escalator.

Beauty salons also don't generate sales tax unless they sell you shampoo and conditioner to take home. Dry cleaners don't generate sales tax. Mortgage brokers and realtors on the first floor don't generate sales tax.

I think my analysis of assuming the first floor generates sales tax while the top 2 floors don't was a good estimate and I was actually being very generous to those in opposition to me in this debate.

If you want to nit pick, slice and dice, and split hairs on this issue, you will lose. I think it is to your benefit to stick with my suggestion and analysis on this one point. I hope you agree.

And of course office workers spend money at the retailers. But I factored that in my generous $300 dollar allowance per retail square foot per year and gave a credit against the cost of these buildings in my analysis.

This can all become very complicated but there is no doubt the residential taxpayers are subsidizing both the downtown and the downtown parking to a great extent. I did not expect the Executive Director of the Downtown Naperville Alliance to admit this to me, but she did. She is an EXPERT and she does not deny this SUBSIDIZATION OF THE DOWNTOWN. I urge residents to visit her. She is very friendly.

She represents downtown and not the residential dwellers. She had done an excellent job representing the downtown developers and landlords in squeezing the residents of this town. She is a lobbyist for them and paid by the ALLIANCE.

My question is who is representing the residents who are being FLEECED? Apparently NO ONE!

As I previously stated, I do not agree with you. I do not think it is "in my benefit" to stick with your suggestion. Is that comment some kind of veiled threat of a forthcoming of personal attack. You are welcome to disagree with me - feel free to at any time. However, my opinions are as valid as those of anyone else. As for me "losing" to you or anyone else, I did not see this as a contest but rather an exchange of ideas. I participated here to share thoughts with those who are interested in what I have to say. Losing or winning never even entered my mind. Apparently it is important to some here.

If you want to nit pick, slice and dice, and split hairs on this issue, you will lose.

There is no winning or losing here. The new parking deck was researched, studied, voted on, and approved. Again, you're late to the party when it comes to protesting this. The residents subsidize various amenities in downtown Naperville because it draws people to Naperville, increasing property values... along with creating a great environment to bring your family whether it's to go out to dinner, buy a book, walk on the Riverwalk, or whatever else.

The epicenter of all things Naperville is its downtown, the envy of many a village planner. Its necklace of anchors and attractions supplies a steady stream of diners and shoppers who spent more than $213 million there in 2004. Beyond the cash the customers bring, they instill vibrancy into a district that is the public face of the town; a study by 4Insights, a Naperville-based marketing company, reported that 90 percent of real-estate agents surveyed said the downtown attracted new homebuyers, and 93 percent said it created preference over other towns and increased home values.

-ChicagoMag - Why Everybody Loves Naperville

News stories like this aren't hard to find.

The lakefront city of Neenah, Wis., envies the twin Starbucks in downtown Naperville.

Leaders of Franklin, Tenn., wish they had miles of red-brick paths along the river that runs through the Nashville suburb.
Folks from Mackinaw, Ill., love the hibiscus in Naperville's flowerbeds, and others from Valparaiso, Ind., want to clone developer Dwight Yackley.
All four cities sent delegations to tour downtown Naperville this year, and each left with a notebook full of...

-Daily Herald Archives - A model downtown Leaders from four towns visit Naperville to borrow its blueprint for success

People like downtown Naperville. I don't think I've ever talked to a new homeowner in the Naperville are who didn't list the downtown area as one of the factors that made them move here. This has been an ongoing trend since the downtown revitalization started in the 1980's. It really doesn't make too much sense why you're choosing now to make your stand... Since this has been happening for the last 30 years and all.

I'm starting to get some serious Rip Van Winkle vibes from your rants here. You've had 30 years to make a stand, move, or do something else to change your situation here.

You've chosen not to.

Promenade Building being Subsidized on February 10, 2009 1:00 AM

You made the following statement in your posting concerning something I said: "I also agree with you that it would border on insanity if Naperville borrowed money at 10% to build this garage as the interest costs would double over 30 years."

Please do not change my words to suit your thought process. I never said anything like what you alluded to. My comment in my posting on February 9, 2009 8:05 PM said, in part,

"#3 When the cost of money is at 10%, companies (or cities) do not borrow money for things they would like to have. Parking garages pretty much fall in the "like to have category".

I never said ,overtly or in any other fashion, that anything was "insane" or "crazy" or used any terms like that. You are welcome to feel that way about the parking deck. I made no such comment or offered any such opinion.

Been There__Built a Few,

When you debate, you lose on some points and you win on other points. Mostly, I agree it should be an exchange of ideas and there should be no final winner or loser. And usually there never is on such a complex issue of SUBSIDIZATION of downtown that has many components and variables. But the evidence will eventually lean one way or another. In this case, I feel the evidence is leaning to an OVERSUBSIDIZATION of the downtown at the expense of the Naperville Taxpayer.

There is no threat of a "veiled personal attack" here by me. I have never attacked anyone first and I certainly will not attack you because I have the utmost respect for you, your knowledge and expertise.

You disagreed with my assessment that second and third floors mostly have tenants that do NOT generate sales tax. I even said you made an EXCELLENT point with your Barnes and Nobles example which I consider an EXCEPTION. Does that sound like I was trying to attack you personally? I gave you the ultimate COMPLEMENT. I did not say your point was fair or good. I said it was EXCELLENT.

But than I proceeded to point out other facts to you. That there are more retailers on the first floor who do not generate sales tax than retailers on the second and third floor who do generate sales tax. I gave you examples such as beauty salons, dry cleaners, banks, realtors and mortgage brokers.

Rather than acknowledging I may be right, you implied there must be a "veiled personal attack."

Look at the difference between you and me. I called your point an EXCELLENT POINT. You called my point a potential veiled PERSONAL ATTACK.

As I said before, I have the utmost respect for you. Please judge me based on what I write and my reaction to you. Don't judge me by rumors and innuendo that cirulate on this blog site about me by bloggers who do not have the ability to debate and discuss a truly complex issue.

There is group on this blog site who have attempted to attack me personally. If you read what they say, you may start to believe it. Sometimes, if something is repeated once to many times, people assume it is truthful.

You seem like a knowledgeable, brilliant, and out of the box thinker. Please remain that way and avoid joining in the opinion of those who will attack you because someone has knowledge and is an out of the box thinker like yourself.

I also have a lot of respect for Councilman Bob who disagrees with me most of the time.

I had a lot of respect for Bob the Builder but he suddenly fell in a trap set up by others....please don't fall in that trap that is being set up by others and let us continue the exchange of ideas.

It was my opinion that for a municipality to borrow money at 10% was INSANITY and not your opinion. While I can not read your mind, I do believe you think that borrowing money at this rate is OUTRAGEOUS. Of course those are your not words but it is my OPINION of your words. I think I am entitled to describe an opinion of your words. I am not required to quote your exact words when expressing my OPINION. But I have no right to DISTORT their meaning. If I did, I apologize to you. That was not my INTENT.

You are a smart man. You and I know that borrowing money at 10% to build a parking lot may be crazy. You chose to be politically correct and not use that word. That is your perogative. But I believe it is CRAZY and I like to say what I say in as an "UNVEILED" way as possible. I do not want anyonee to MISUNDERSTAND me. I am not looking for political correctness. If I am or ever run for City Council, I will be speaking to my contituents in BLUNT and UNDERSTANDABLE TERMS.

Believe me, nothing I say is veiled. I speak my mind and refrain from any personal attacks unless someone attacks me first. And then I give him a chance or two to cool down before I respond.

I have asked the Moderator to institute his recommedation of ZERO TOLERANCE. Out of the hundreds of people blogging, I am the only one who came out in support of his ZERO TOLERANCE policy for personal attacks. That should speak volumes about my feeling regarding personal attacks. I think they are unproductive and worthless. I regret that I have a weakness that eventually makes me lower myself and respond to them. Hopefully, I will overcome this weakness one day and learn to ignore wothless personal attacks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ps. I have incorporated interest rates you suggested, maintenance costs you suggested, original costs you suggested to come up with my new numbers. If you like I will detail them for you. The only thing I strongly disagree with you is the OPPORTUNITY cost of land. 1000 parking spots based on information you and the city are providing cost well over a 100 million dollars over 30 years and that is based on obtaining municipal bonds at 6% in this terrible market where money is not even available. It is based on $7,500,000 dollars(7500 x 1000) for parking maintenance which is your number and not my number. I believe the cost is over a 100 million without even factoring in the cost of land but I need to use my amoritization and mortgage calculators to be 100% certain. If you want me to compute it for you, just ask.

The City of Naperville could have sold that very prime piece of property to a private developer where the Van Buren Parking Deck addition was built for many millions of dollars. They could have forced the Promenade Building to build underground parking which sometimes is even cheaper when you factor in the high cost of land that is avoided with underground parking.

I believe, you and I, can compromise and arrive at a true cost to these parking garages. Hopefully, when we get to that point, you don't disagree with my analysis based on facts you are providing for fear of siding with the minority over the majority.

I am hoping you turn out to be a man of principle instead of a man who can be gobbled up by a group of bloggers who think like a herd. My suspician is your are a man of principle and integrity.

Why is this a debate? I have no interest in debating you or anyone else. If you feel the need to make this a debate, then I have no interest in continuing any conversation.

Holy COW please STOP using CAPITAL letters IN every OTHER word IT makes READING your RANTS that MUCH more PAINFUL.

I don't really know what there even is to "debate" here unless Promenade Building being Subsidized is just completely misusing the word.

We live in Naperville, which has been subsidizing the downtown area at different levels since the 1980's. If you can't afford the taxes, move. If you don't like something which is being proposed, speak up at council meetings. Get involved in the campaign of a city councilmen who shares your views. Complaining endlessly anonymously online isn't doing anything but chasing people away as you attempt to bait industry experts in to some kind of "debate" over numbers you stumbled across in a PDF while you question whether or not they're "men of principle and integrity".

I really don't know what else to say. The parking deck was already voted on, and is in the works. I really don't see them pulling the plug on it now because an anonymous person on the internet is crying the sky is falling. If you want to put a stop to future projects, that's fine, but it's going to require more than hiding behind your computer and repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over and over...

And please, stop back-seat moderating.

Been There Built a Few,

Let us try to keep it simple and calculate the cost to build 1000 parking spots which is rougly two parking decks. 4 of the 5 decks built or being built in downtown Naperville have over 500 parking spots. Only, the VAN BUREN addition is less with only 317 parking spots.

1.Assume the City is right and it cost $40,000 to build each parking spot.

2.Assume the City can float Municipal Bonds at 6.75% in this environment. Maine and Oregon floated new municipal bonds at that rate yesterday. The State of New York could not float municipal bonds due to its weak financial condition and asked Federal Chairman Ben Bernanke for TARP help during a Senate Hearing meeting today televised on CNBC. The Chairman told New York Senators and Representatives that he probably could not help them with TARP money because there is a requirement of assets to be pledged and municipalties do not usually pledge assets.

3.Assume as you stated, it cost 250 dollars to maintain each parking spot per year or 7500 for 30 years.

====================================================================

1. Equals $40,000,000

2. Equals $53,398,126

3. Equals $7,500,000

======================

Total = $100,898,126

======================

Anyway this is an exact number based on information provided by yourself and the City of Naperville. You "may" have chosen not to believe the numbers derived from reliable sources including YOURSELF.

Yes, you have claimed that you can build parking decks for $30,000 a spot. The evidence I researched supports what you are saying. I believe you and know you can.

Either the city turns over the building of parking decks to you, so we can save $10,000,000 in the example I provided above or we have no alternative but to accept the fact that they are going to proceed with the library deck at $40,000 per parking spot rain, shine or h$ll break loose.

I know you won't say it, but I will say it. The city of Naperville is being taken for $10,000,000 by paying $10,000 more for each parking spot based on my analysis and your estimates.

Now, do you still think we don't have a story here, Moderator Chris? I assume you believe "Been There....Built a Few" is credible as I beleive he is. I have verified much of what he is saying as being right on the money.

Do you not think Moderator, you, your editor, or one of your reporters should call the City Manager and ask him why it is costing us $10,000 more per parking spot to build at the library. It is also costing us $13,350 in additional interest expense per parking spot. Thus the city is paying $23,350 more per each parking spot or $23,350,000 for 1000 parking spots. This is a lot of WASTED TAXPAYER money.

If "Been There....Built a Few" is right and I believe he is right, than the City of Naperville is fleecing us out of $23,350,000 because someone in City Hall did not go out there and get COMPETITIVE bids. Was somebody sleeping behind the wheel? If so, this could be the most expensive nap in the history of mankind.

There is nothing complicated about the library 2 acre parking lot. It is flat and one piece. We may have to chop down a few trees. Does it cost $23,350,000 or to be more exact HALF of that to chop down 10 trees. Ten trees can be choppped down and hauled away for 500 dollars last time I checked. If they are huge, maybe 1000 dollars each. What other complexities am I not seeing 'Been There....Built a Few" that you may know about since your expertise far exceeds mine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. In my opinion blogging is debating and discussing. It is exchanging ideas. It is learning from one another. If you do not want to debate and this issue concerns you, I suggest you write a Letter To the Editor of the Sun or write a letter to the City Manager and inform him you can build parking spots for 30k instead of the 40k the city manager is willing to pay.

You disagreed with my $100 million number of which the taxpayers would have to pay $93 million. I showed you my calculations were accurate and now you don't want to debate anymore. If you think my mortgage and amoritiziation calculators are misfiring or misfunctioning feel free to use your own. Feel free to proceed in what ever direction you please. Again, I believe a blog site is for debate and discussion and exchanging views in a respectable manner. Maybe the Moderator can express his views as to what a Blog Site is about.

Thank you for your discussion if you chose to leave us. I hope you stay with us on this blog site as you have been a very productive debator.

The fact that we are not here to debate, but rather exchange ideas is absolutely appropriate. We are not running for office, we are not on the high school debate team. We have valid ideas to share for whoever wants to read and form a personal opinion or to reaffirm a personal opinion, to broaden our perspective, not to change minds or "win", just to share different reference points and ideas across the board.

I believe it has been a more successful exchange the past few days, less chasing people with good information away.

Let us make this very simple - I am not going to debate you - I am not interested in debate - that is not why I came in here or why I posted. You can believe what ever you like - and that includes whether you think I "lost" or that you "won". I stopped in here to offer some insights into a subject I am familiar with. Good luck to you in your search prove yourself to be right or to find someone who wishes to debate you.

By ANN E. on February 10, 2009 6:00 PM

I believe it has been a more successful exchange the past few days, less chasing people with good information away.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with your above comment and hope it remains that way. Hopefully, the moderator can help us keep it that way by instituting his ZERO TOLERANCE policy soon.

I think a healthy debate and discussion is nothing more than a successful exchange of ideas. I also think it is OK to change peoples minds especially if you think there is a mistake.

Been There.....Built a Few has provided valuable information indicating the City of Naperville is paying $23,350,000 too much for each 1000 parking spots being built in downtown. He provided the information and I simply agreed with him after doing the analysis and calculations based on his own numbers. I don't know why he would be upset with me. I am not baiting him as KR falsely alleges. I am just learning from an expert. Exchanging ideas with an expert if you will. Maybe the Moderator can explain this to KR so he can get over his hostility. AnnE seems to have no hostility and comes on in a pleasant manner each and every time. She sets a good example for others to follow and emulate.

I think Been There...Built a Few is a HERO to show such a waste of taxpayer money by City Officias who are not doing their homework. That is what happens when our City Councilmen do not read their packets and try to get out of the city council meetings in less than an hour. They fail us in their responsibilities and duties. We elected them to protect our interests and they are letting us down.

On each future 1000 parking spots to be built in the downtown, each resident is being overcharged $461 above and beyond what we should be paying according to Been There.....Built a Few. This is based on 50,000 homes. If you use his inaccurate number of only 40,000 homes in Naperville the damage is $576 per household. Obviously, I am not trying to inflate the numbers provided in error by those who oppose my analysis. I am trying to be as credible and honest as possible. In the end one must be able to back-up his or her documentation and analysis.

How many of us would allow a contractor come to our home and overcharge us $461 dollars when we buy a stove or air conditioner?

Why are we allowing our City to be overcharged? They are not watching our money like it is their money. The Naperville Sun needs to call them on their lack of frugalness with our hard earned tax dollars.

Maybe Councilman Bob will come on here and explain to us why we agreed to pay 40k to build each spot at the library deck instead of 30k that a professional who lives in town is claiming to be the proper cost. Maybe he is phoning the City Manager to get some answers. He has alway gotten back to us and always been fully transparent.

PBBS: You have taken a part of my comment and used it out of context to make it look as though I support your ways and means. We have all been here long enough to know that I DO NOT support your "debate" tactics.

Please don't twist my words, I believe you are the only one here that would read what I wrote as supportive to your comments.

Yes, me again. PBBS--why all the words about who did what, who is behaving well according to the way you would moderate, and who gets your accolades and who doesn't? Just state your ideas, please...and leave the extraneous details regarding individuals on the editing floor? We are all trying to keep to ideas here, without commenting on any individual's commenting style or behavior.

As there was some discussion on what the purpose of a blog site is, I would say it is different for different people. Some people just want to offer an opinion on things without getting into a confrontation, while others enjoy a spirited debate. I think both are equally valid. But if one person was just offering facts or an opinion and has no interest in debate, that should be respected. I agree with some things others have said that this discussion has the best chance of staying civil if people don't comment on the other bloggers, their personalities, their motives, etc. If you find yourself writing something that someone else might interpret as an attack on them, stop yourself. Disagreements will happen but when it becomes about the blogger and not the topic then it's not much fun for most people.

By Promenade Building being Subsidized on February 10, 2009 8:03 PM
By ANN E. on February 10, 2009 6:00 PM

I believe it has been a more successful exchange the past few days, less chasing people with good information away.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with your above comment and hope it remains that way. Hopefully, the moderator can help us keep it that way by instituting his ZERO TOLERANCE policy soon.

######################################################################################################

AnnE.,

I simply agreed with your one specific comment that I posted above. I did not take anything out of context. Please don't try to make a mountain out of a moehill.

I never said you agreed with me so you are twisting what I said.

I only said you have been pleasant and I appreciate that.

I am sorry that you had a bad day at the office. I hope you have a better day tomorrow.

PBBS: I think it is a matter of common knowledge here that people here often take offense at your postings. Whether that is intentional or just your style, there is something about your blogging that just gets people riled up. This is not a personal attack - it is an observation. Some people will want to debate you, others will not. Some post here to share ideas or information. As has often been said before, by more than a few, true respect is gained when genuine respect is given. You don't have to like the ideas of others or agree with them. It's great that you are passionate about your beliefs and opinions. But possibly, you might tone it down a bit and still make your point.

"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim." George Santayana

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill

Naperville Sun editors on February 10, 2009 8:41 PM

I agree with you Chris. I was ready with some rebuttals and comments regarding the tenor of the "debate" (or monologue, I forget sometimes!) and thought better of it.

I believe this Promenade is good for the town, Councilman Bob more than made the case that the return on investment and subsidy is more than the initial costs.

Been There Built a Few: Thanks for the insight, it is good to have accurate facts, what you write is reasonable and good information.

Fed Up with the Noise,

I am not trying to rile anyone up. I just think the city is paying too much per parking spot to build this library parking deck that I am against in the first place.

Been There Built a Few provided the information. I just inserted his data in an amorization calculator and then added the numbers with a $5.99 caluculator I bought at Wal-Mart. Did not mean to rile him up. Maybe he was expecting a different result.

He is providing evidence that the City of Naperville is paying $23,350,000 TOO MUCH for each 1000 parking spots to be built in the future. My research supports his data and agrees with him 100%.

He apparently came on here to challenge my number of 40k with his number of 30k per parking spot. I agreed with him after doing some research of my own. I think when he found out it was NOT my number, but it was a City number he wanted to back track. Apparently, he is a city supporter and believes the city could do no wrong even if it overpays. Once again it is the City that has contracted to build this library parking deck with about 500 spots for $19.9 million dollars. If you read the Naperville Sun as I do, you would know this. ($20 million for 500 parking spots is exactly 40k per spot)

I have only been complementing and praising fellow bloggers in recent days to try to bring a positive atmosphere. I have been using facts and data provided by fellow bloggers. I have been very flexible and listening to what others are saying. I have been very polite.

It is obvious to me that certain bloggers have prejudicial feelings towards me, and will attack me even if I complement them. Even if I am polite, accurate and informative.

Again, the evidence is all in black and white.

KR is attacking me and/or my views for coming too late as he thinks this library deck is laid in concrete and can not be reversed. He must not watch city council meetings or read the Naperville Sun. This deck is under consideration for a temporary or permanent cancellation.

I am hoping I can do whatever I can to influence the vote on the City Council. I know 2 councilmen personally who read this blog site but do not write. I have spoken to both of them. I do not know CM Bob but we all know he blogs here and that makes 3.

Therefore, I feel we can influence change through this blog site. I have no evidence that the other 6 city council members do not visit this site. I suspect they do at times. I don't know for sure.

When I visited Executive Director Patti Roberts of the Downtown Naperville Alliance the first time, she was not aware this blog site existed. I introduced her to the blog site and pointed some threads to her about the library deck. She promised she would read them. I have no doubt she read them. She supports building the library parking deck and is very interested in what her opponents have to say. She has to lobby the city council so she has to be fully aware. I tried to change her mind in a one hour meeting I had with her, but she was adamant in her belief that the city needs this parking deck.

Let us see if the City Council Members reverse themselves. They have done it in the past. One example is when they reversed themselves on the Spring Green commercial plaza inside a residential neighborhood when the Napergate Man rallied many subdivisions with his full page Napergate Ads and grass roots movement.

So anything can happen. As long as the foundation has not been dug up for the library deck, it can be stopped. I think the only items making the city council hesitate on calling off the project is the one million dollars in "sunk costs" pointed out by CM Furstenau.

At this point all I know is CM Furstenau wants to continue with the Parking Deck at the library while CM Wehrli wants to stop it. I am on CM Wehrli's side. It appears most bloggers are in CM Furstenau's camp. We will have to see how the other 7 councilmen vote when it is put up for a vote again. I hope the Naperville Sun covers the story and keeps us informed.

Until then, I intend to continue to lobby my councilmen using this blog site that I know some or all of them read. I am trying to save myself and every taxpayer in this town some money. I don't see any harm in that. I don't understand why that would rile anyone up. CM Bob does not seem all riled up. He continues to provide very helpful information so we can make an informed decision.

Everyone has a different style of writing. My intentions are good. People have to accept other people's writing styles. People have to learn to be tolerant. People need to control their hostility towards others.

Bloggers and City Council Members,

Here is another angle to this story of parking.

The City of Naperville claims we only need 2.04 parking spots per 1000 sq. ft. of commercial space downtown. They only charge the developers for 1.02 parking spots per 1000 sq. ft. based on some vague 50-50 formula.

Executive Director Patti Roberts told me the downtown had a little over 900,000 sq. ft. of space a few months ago and would have over a million once the Promenade Expansion and Naper Main Town Center were built. A million square feet is usually the size of a decent size mall like the Fox Valley Mall.

Thus one is to believe we only need 2040 parking spots for the downtown of which the developers only need to pay for 1020.

Below is some data from the City Web Site.

***********************************************************************************************************

Parking Facility
Year Built Number of Spaces

Central Parking Facility 1987 553
Van Buren Parking Deck 2001 530
Van Buren Deck Addition 2008 317

************************************************************************************************************

The Library Deck will have about 500 more spots.

The Water Street Deck will have about 550 more spots.

The city parking lot between Potters and Van Buren contains about 200 parking spots.

The city parking lot between Lou Malnati's and the Promenade Building contains another roughly 200 parking spots.

The parking lot on the corner of Jackson and Main and directly across from Sullivan's contains 30 parking spots.

The parking lot on Jackson next to the former City Hall at 175 Jackson contains about 100 parking spots.

The City Hall parking lot across the river from the library contains about 500 parking spots on 2 levels

The Park District parking lot kitty corner from the Library contains about 50 parking spots.

The Beach Parking lot has about 500 parking spots.

These are all public lots owned by the city or park district. I am not counting some smaller parking lots such as those owned by Dean's or the plaza at 22 E. Chicago Ave that contains Bar Louie. I may also be forgetting some city parking lots in the downtown area.

If you add these public lots that I can recall from memory you obtain 4030 parking spots which disputes the city formula that we only need 2.04 or 1.02 spots per thousand square feet of space.

If you add all the street parking downtown which is on every street(we are not even counting privately owned parking), you get will over 5000 parking spots needed to accomodate the 1,000,000 sq.ft. of retail and office space in the downtown area. This converts to about 5 spots per 1000 per square feet. Low and behold, very similar to the rest of Naperville.

The city uses a formula of 4 spots per 1000 sq.ft. for retail and 10 spots per 1000 sq. ft. for restaurants and bars outside the downtown. That usually averages to 5 spots per 1000 sq. ft. It appears the parking requirement is the same and should be the same whether downtown or outside downtown. In shopping centers outside the downtown you have stores that are busy in the daytime and stores that are busy at nightime. They share just like in downtown but the city still requires 5 spots per 1000 outside the downtown

Therefore, I have to conclude when the city charges developers only for 1.02 spots per 1000 square feet, they are subsidizing the the other 4 spots for them using residential taxpayer money.

If we only needed 2.04 spots and with the 50-50 formula 1.02 spots why do have have nearly 5000 parking spots downtown instead of only 2040 or 1020 depending how you interpret the computation our City Staff use with this very ambiguos 50-50 formula. Maybe CM Bob could be kind enough to explain this formula or obtain an explanation from City Staff.

My interpretation is that the city is saying we need 2040 parking spots for the downtown, but we will try to charge the developers for half of them and the residents for the other half.

However, who is paying for the other 3000 parking spots in downtown Naperville that the city built or owns. You guessed it....The Naperville Taxpayer.

When you put the City of Naperville under a microscope nothing they say adds up or makes sense. That is why we need the Naperville Sun to take over from where the Napergate Man left off and start asking some hard hitting questions of our City Staff and City Council Members. We need the Sun to hold them accountable for their actions and to make sure they are performing their duties to the taxpayers who elected them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am still having a hard time comprehending how this 65,000 sq. ft. Promenade Expansion needs only 25 parking spots. The Promenade Original has 22 spots for parking on the street. The Promenade Expansion has 12 spots on the street. I suspect the city gave both buildings credit for these same 34 street parking spots that surround both of its buildings. Once for the new building and once for the old building. These things can happen if city council don't read and study their 500 page bi-weekly packets. If a councilman does not want to read his bi-weekly packet, he should not be a councilman. No one said the job is easy!

To PBBS:

You assume I am a "city supporter" and "believe the city can do now wrong." Again - I made no such statement nor did I allude to being supportive of any parking deck or the costs as forecast by the city in any way shape, manner or form. You made an assumption of my position on a subject with out any knowledge of my thoughts on the manner. Again - I have made no mention of support, approval or disapproval of parking decks in any way. I merely said that based on my experience the cost to build a parking deck was less than the $40k per space that was discussed and provided information on what parking decks costs, not only from my own experience but from a reliable national source as well.

I am asking you very politely - do not interpret my words. Do not post any smarmy compliments about me. I do not believe they are sincere or genuine in any way. If you want to know what I think - ask but don't assume.

PBBS - or may I just call you BS? You ask for tolerance. You say that people should control their hostility. Agreed. But tolerance and control have to go both ways.

PBBS- Please point out where I'm "attacking" you. It's starting to sound like this "ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY" you want Chris to institute amounts to nothing more than not publishing any comments which disagree with your repetitive parking manifesto. I don't think your "writing style" has anything to do with your abrasive tone and condescending manner of "debate" as you massage single sentences snipped out of people's posts in to some kind of twisted agreement with your parking deck musings. The only thing you can blame your writing style for is your incessant need to repeat yourself as you refuse to write anything concisely in exchange for devoting entire paragraphs to repeating the same point.

This blog site has existed for years and though several editors without the need for any rules. You've come here and Chris has already had to make multiple substantial policy changes as a direct result of your postings- so it's really not hard to determine the source of the "problem" now...

I've offered you advice in the past on how to be taken seriously here. I really don't know what else I can do for you if you refuse to listen. Since I know you have a knee-jerk reaction to question people's qualifications when they make any claims of expertise- I've been contributing to, moderating, and even administering a few online communities since discovering the Equinox BBS out of Bartlett in the late 80's, the local BBS explosion in the early 90's, Usenet in the late 90's, and now days modern forums and blogs.

So I can say with the utmost confidence that it is you, and you alone that is the problem here. I promise if you heed the advice I've posted previously, you would see a massive change in the way people respond to you. Don't believe me? You've posted yourself attempting to garner sympathy that in threads where people don't recognize you, no one "attacks" you.

I have no ill will towards you, or anyone else that contributes to this site. It's a fun place to talk to other people about local things few people outside of Naperville even care about and almost always has a dedicated tab in my web browser. I really don't want you to ruin it with by continuing to push Chris's buttons until this site is so restricted with so many rules that everything that is fun about it gets squeezed out in the process.

Read my advice I've posted in this thread, the local legislator's wish list thread, hell even the thread where you're going crazy over Israel. While you're at it, look at how the people who post about the school districts talk to each other on both sides of an extremely heated argument. They always remain civil with few rare exceptions... And in those threads there are a lot more people arguing than this thread which essentially amounts to you ranting while everyone else scratches their head and/or buries their face in their palm.

I beg of you, please don't ruin this blog for everyone else.

By Fed Up With The Noise on February 10, 2009 9:47 PM
PBBS: I think it is a matter of common knowledge here that people here often take offense at your postings. Whether that is intentional or just your style, there is something about your blogging that just gets people riled up.

==================================================================

Fed Up With the Noise, Keyboard Rambo, and Anonymous One,

Did it ever occur to you that people get riled up about my posts lately because you 3 are involved in an orchestrated attempt to rile bloggers up against me?

Why don't you stop your orchestrated campaign and maybe people will not be riled up.

I am not a person who will not change my mind. I changed my mind and used all the numbers provided by Been There....Built a Few and still got attacked. I have been on this blog site for 3 years and changed the subject hundreds of times. So why say such things. Why try to rile up bloggers and then say something about me riling them up? Anyone can see though your hostility. Anyone can see through your credibility.

My posts did not rile people up for 2 years and 9 months. Only when you guys ganged up on me, did people get all riled up. So don't blame me for your actions. My style of writing has not changed and according to you guys detectable. If my style of writing was what riles people up, people would have been riled from Day One. But it all started because of your hostility towards me. It will end when people see through your hostility. Trust me, I will outlast you guys as I have a higher and more serious goal than you gentlemen. I am trying to effect change in this town. What is your purpose for being on this blog site?

When I try to move forward and change the tone, you 3 gentlemen choose to move backwards. I am only blogging on one thread currently. I am not on any of the other threads you guys are on bothering you, your personalities or handles that you hold in high esteem. This should indicate without any doubt, I am only concerned about the issues and not personalities. The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.

If you don't like this subject or believe it should be changed, than why are you on this thread discussing the subject....or are you back here discussing me again??? I thought the Moderator said that I am not the subject and should not be discussed. If you respect and agree with the Moderator, than please abide by his wishes.

I have extended an Olive Branch and no one has accepted. Maybe I will next release some White Doves and ask for peace. Do I really sound like someone trying to rile people up? Let us face the truth. You 3 have riled bloggers up against me and want to blame me for your actions. Anyone can see through your motives and actions. Why don't you guys extend an Olive Branch and try to fly some White Doves?

As far as chasing bloggers away and hurting this blog site, that is laughable. Any blog I am on, by far gets the most hits. If I were chasing people away, the threads I am on would have the least hits. Again, the evidence contradicts what you guys state. Obviously bloggers like controversy, debate and discussion. If everyone agreed with everyone else, this blog site would have died a long time ago.

The Moderator has stated this is the most or one of the most successful blog sites in the Sun Group of Newspapers. I have been blogging from Day One. Obviously, I can't be hurting this blog site that much. Maybe, I am even helping it prosper in some way or form.

Did you even honestly read my post? Do you really not get it? Is it possible for you to write anything without questioning someone's credibility? Last time you "extended an olive branch" you questioned whether or not bloggers graduated high school, cried to the moderator about people "attacking" you, then turned around and chased Bob the Builder away with a hilariously condescending post about how he must be twins with Joe the Plumber.

I don't care whether or not you think I am credible. I don't care if you think I have motives beyond improving this web site. I don't care if you believe me about my personal areas of expertise. Live in denial all you want, that's fine with me. All I'm trying to do is provide you with some advice for people to take you seriously instead of rolling their eyes and seeing you've ruined yet another thread on here.

I don't think you understand what "hits" are. If by "hits" you mean "comments" then yes, it's probably because you're baiting people in to responding to your remarkably offensive diatribes, then responding multiple times, often in response to yourself. I've tried explaining this before, but reading other people's posts for any more information outside of what you want to read from them doesn't seem to be a strong point of yours. In the world of advertising on the internet, where companies like the Sun make their money from hosting sites like this, it's all about unique visitors... not you mashing your browser's refresh button all day long that generates advertising revenue.

Advertisers haven't paid much if anything for non-unique page impressions since the .com bust. You're not helping anything to succeed, if nothing else all you're doing is adding more work to the already obviously stressed (Have you noticed how long it takes to submit a comment and get the confirmation page?) web servers.

Please stop demanding intervention from Chris. He reads every post before it gets published in the Movable Type administration console. If he didn't want something to be published, he wouldn't approve it. All you're doing is backseat moderating... and for someone who has caused as much trouble as you have between pretending to be the entire Napergate clan, to posting as Barack Obama, to your latest blogging stunts- I really think you are the last person Chris will take advice from on how to run his blog.

I hope you can find the time to re-read my post which was published today at 12:12 PM. What I wrote and what you seem to be getting out of it couldn't possibly be further apart.

PBBS: Are you saying that there is some kind of conspiracy against you by people blogging here? Is it possible that maybe there just happen to be several people - at least 4 that come to mind - that find your diatribes offensive and more than a bit tedious? I have no idea who these other people are. I have never met them or communicated with any of them in any way other than postings here on this site. Your incessant complaining that you are being attacked by some conspiracy of others is just ridiculous.

If you are so sure that the city is doing something wrong here, why not organize a protest at the library site or at the Promenade? Get the people out and protest. Maybe you can get your anti-Israeli, pro Palestinian group to support your position. Get a petition started to have the city council kill the proposed library deck. I have yet to see anyone here on this post agree with your stand. Maybe there are some that are in agreement with you. But we haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

Promenade Building being Subsidized on February 11, 2009 2:34 PM

I am not a person who will not change my mind. I changed my mind and used all the numbers provided by Been There....Built a Few and still got attacked

_____________________

Dear Promenade, I respectfully disagree with your statement. I questioned how much revenue each spot generates (something I still haven't seen from anyone) and that this should be factored into the equation. Been There commented on his expertise and estimated a cost of 30K per spot. Your response, unfortunately, was a backhanded compliment because while you praised them for commenting you then spent each subsequent posting disagreeing with this person and insisting that they really don't know as much as you. You then claimed some kind of victory by disagreeing with Been There.

That's about as polite as I can be about it, and it is just one little piece of your comments. As for your ability to change your mind, this is good to hear. Typically in the past you were willing to change your identity, but never your mind - so I guess we can call this a breakthrough!

And regarding your comment about blogging for 2 years and 9 months without being attacked? I disagree with this as well. Don't you remember how divisive things were when you were the Napergate group? You may have been about 50 different people, but you were in constant battles with many different people. We all use to comment that you were one person, so your writing style (and methods) really have never changed over the years. You were just lucky that the previous moderators kept your secret.

Been There....Built a Few,

I have had my kid's gloves on when dealing with you. I have praised you, treated you nicely, called your points excellent, incorporated all your numbers in my calculations and you seem to have a problem.

Let us try to understand your problem.

You claim you are here to issue an opinion and do not want to debate. If you are here to issue an opinion, you have issued your opinion, we read it, admired it and whatever else. If you are not interested in debating, why are you still here?

You question my data. I don't have any objection. I think that is awesome. When I question your data, you imply I have no right to question your data and that you are not here to debate. That is really silly. Honestly!

Just to give you an example. I stated that in general the ground floor generates sales tax revenue and the top 2 floors in general do not generate sales tax revenue. That is generally a very accurate statement with exceptions both ways.

You claim you don't want to DEBATE. But yet you question my statement. If that is not debate, what is debate? No offense, BTBAF, but do you understand what debate and discussion are.

I wrote a letter addressed to AnnE....not you. You wrote a post

"By Been There - Built a Few on February 9, 2009 8:05 PM"

challenging nearly everything I said with 8 points. I thought many of your points of discussion and debate were very good. But is it not hypocritical for you to think it is OK to discuss the information and opinion I provide while you think it is not OK to discuss the information and opinion you provide? That seems ludicrous. It seems double standard. It seems babyish or at least childish. You simply can not have it both ways.

How can you keep coming on here saying I am not here to debate while you are DEBATING, DISCUSSING and ARGUING. Personally, I think you have been influenced by KR, FUWN and AO. These 3 individuals possibly one individual being 3 characters is only here to start trouble. How could you honestly not see that? Why fall for their trap? Why fall for their acrobatics and semantics. You are an intelligent man. Don't fall into the trap they are setting for you. Let them makes fools of themselves. Please don't allow them to make a fool of you.

I respect you because you understand my numbers and challenge my numbers. I want to be challenged so when I do appear before the city council, I will be very prepared. I am using this forum to prepare myself. I have appeared before the city council before, spoken on many issues, met with councilmen, contributed over $5000 dollars to councilmen(never more than $150 to a councilmen per election) I agree with over 4 decades. Not much money but at least I tried to get involved. I doubt the 3 who attack me have ever done anything but keyboard and blow their noses with noise.

I have given my credentials, experience and education to Host Chris directly. I have not posted them publicly because I consider that a form of bragging. I also don't want to use my credentials and education as a mechanism to win an argument. When Bob the Builders stated since he has 22 years experience and therefore he must be right and not challenged, I got a good laugh. If he has 22 years of experience, than he should have ripped the numbers I provided apart and proved them wrong. That is not something difficult to do.

BTBAF has provided excellent information in this debate. I am convinced he is right that the City of Naperville should only be paying $30k to build parking spots in decks at this time and not $40k. I have every right to conclude based on information BTBAF provided that the city is sleeping behind the wheel and is not obtaining the proper competitive bids or possibly giving the bids to connected developers.

If you are a citizen of Naperville, BTBAF, I am a little surprised you are not at least upset that your city is paying $23,350,000 TOO MUCH for each 1000 parking spots to be built over what you can do it for.

Now with all due respect this saving is based on your numbers and methods of calculation. It is you who said these parking spots can be built for $30,000 each. It is you who said they can be financed using current rates on Municipal bonds. It is you who said they each cost $7500 dollar to maintain over 30 years.

I simply plugged the city numbers in the same program I plugged your numbers in. If you are not saying it, the numbers you are providing are stating that the City of Naperville is paying $23,350,000 too much to build each 1000 spots.

Are you going to dispute this anaylsis which was based on YOUR numbers? I dumped my numbers and used your numbers for this analysis. And the 3 trouble makers have the audacity to say I don't listen or that I am stubborn in my beliefs. I am very flexible and only seeking accurate information and the truth. Notice these 3 touble makers only attack me like little kids and never my research or data. They are not even aware that CM Wehrli is leading a campaign to halt the library deck. That is what happens to people that are glued to their keyboards, blogging on every subject and making idiots and fools of themselves trying to play MODERATOR. (I took my gloves off Moderator Chris since you are allowing these 3 yoyos to continue posting about ME instead of my MESSAGE....sorry! They do not even respect you or your comments. I did respect your comments and now once again I am responding to like with like)

Back to the subject. Any taxpayer who discovered that his City was paying $23,350,000 too much to build parking spots would be outraged. Why are you, BTBAF are not at least upset is puzzling to me? The city is squandering your money and fleecing the taxpayers. Those are your numbers, not mine. You have a right not to be outraged....but I have a right to be outraged and in my opinion every taxpayer in Naperville should be outraged at the squandering of their hard earned dollars.

As far as those 3 individuals, they should also be upset about this. It is indisputable evidence provided by a professional garage builder. I just did not only believe him but verified his information to be accurate and truthful.

Based on the evidence BTBAF provided, I would like to ask the Naperville Sun to reconsider and do a full blown story about this issue. It is the duty of a newspaper to some extent to make sure the taxpayers are not fleeced by their city. The Sun needs to be in the forefront on this issue.

Thank you.

PBBS said, regarding Been There...Built a Few:

"I have had my kid's [sic] gloves on when dealing with you."

Is it the responsibility of anyone commenting here to "deal with" any other poster here?

Ask the Sun to write whatever article you would like, and I'm sure all requests are taken into consideration to some extent, but PBBS, you do not work for the paper and once again you look for others to do your legwork and ask people to take up your cause when all that you write here may be read by people that have a totally different opinion about that cause. This seems to be what makes you tick, however, topic after topic.

People have tried to suggest other channels for your angst. Another suggestion might be to take your education and the love of the written word that you seem to posses and get hired by a news source that will publish your thoughts and ideas, without asking others to do this for you. Passion is great. Energy and responsibility to use that passion to get where you want to go comes from you, yourself, if you feel you have a cause that requires change.

I think the support that the town of Naperville has used to develop a unique and sought after downtown is great. I also like Wheaton, having lived there for a long time, but the dynamics are different. Wheaton gets me downtown because I have great memories of a restaurant or two there, the Popcorn shop that is only 5 feet wide built in the alley between buildings,a few clients and memories of walking downtown for ice cream when my children were little. Naperville draws me downtown with more restaurants, more nightlife, more shopping, the riverwalk/concerts, and festivals. It's not cheap, it's not putting anyone out of their homes in this one area, taxes are rising but they are rising all over the area as everything else is. That is sad for many, it's unfortunate that layoffs, home prices and unethical mortgages are becoming difficult for many at this time. That would happen regardless of what Naperville tries to do to maintain a great downtown. I do wish commuter parking would become a more important issue, as I think it could also pay for itself over time, Many of us do take the train to get to where we need to go so that we can earn what we need to pay to live in this area. Topic for another day, perhaps

FUWN, KR and AO,

You all sound like one identical broken keyboard.

You have been repeating the same thing for 3 months.

You specialize in personal attacks with the limited ability of a parot who keeps repeating itself.

You all sound like wanna be moderators as you never discuss issues.

All you do is discuss bloggers.

I provided important information regarding the cost of these parking decks and adjusted based on valuable information provided by a professional to prove the city was overpaying and squandering the taxpayers' money. I also provided revenue streams based on both 200 and 300 dollars per square foot based on 1,000,000 sq. ft. One of you threesome provided numbers stating that the downtown produced revenue of $213,000,000 which tranlates to 213 dollars per square foot and confirms my estimated range on the lower side.

Based on costs provided by Been There...Built a Few and a revenue number of $300 per sq. ft. in retail sales I used for my analysis which now appears to have been very overly generous, I determined we are losing $93 million per 1000 parking spots over 30 years. The cost to build 1000 parking spots was a touch over $100,000,000. I provided an exact number using current municipal bond rates that floated the same day in both Maine and Oregon which had positive cash flows. BT....BAF questioned the $93 million shortfall of sales tax on the revenue as opposed to the cost of building these decks, even though the numbers have been provided by him and the trio. Amazing! One of the trio, probably KR confirmed revenue at 213 million before the bubble burst. It is probably much lower now as the City has confirmed a substantial decline in sales tax revenue is one of the 2 main reasons for our $11.5 million shortfall in the budget. The other reason is very little revenue is being generated from fees related to real estate transactions.

You guys provide numbers and when the numbers are added and subtracted you don't want to believe your own numbers. Who is being stubborn here? Who is not listening here? Who is not flexible here? Who is not willing to change here? Who is afraid to call the City of Naperville out for squandering their hard earned tax dollars? Think about that if you have the brain power. Stop being so obsessed with yourselves or yourself as the case may be. You all sound very identical and have the same exact theme in every one of your posts. It is getting very old.

How could it be that all 3(1) of you guys apparently do not even know that City Councilman Wehrli has reversed himself and is now leading the city council in an attempt to stop the parking deck at the library as not affordable or practicable especially at this time. He is very well respected by the establishment and got either the most votes or second most votes in the last election he ran. I believe he will pull it off easily and KR will have egg on his face for thinking the project can not be stopped.

How ironic that this establishment trio is siding with CM Furstenau on this deck issue!

Get over your keyboard rants and raves and become productive members of society instead of losers trying to play Moderator on multiple threads. You all sound just like a 3-headed octopus flinging his 8 arms....ranting and raving with no productivity!!! Useless members of society....a waste of potential talent. How unfortunate..........

Chris:

I suppose that comments by (PB)BS about losers and useless member of society do not constitute personal attacks?

Fed Up, honestly I have been scrambling to get all my work done today and when that happens I can't go over the posts with a fine-toothed comb. I have repeatedly asked everyone to lay off the comments on other bloggers but they just can't help themselves, and you are included in that. You are all responsible for the tone that this discussion takes, so don't contribute to it if you don't like it and maybe we can someday move past it.

By Fed Up With The Noise on February 11, 2009 9:02 PM
Chris:

I suppose that comments by (PB)BS about losers and useless member of society do not constitute personal attacks?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

They were personal attacks and deliberate.

If you complement bloggers, tell them their points are excellent, work with their numbers, tell them they are polite, and they still attack you personally one has no choice but to personally counter-attack.

I have written private letters to the Moderatore pointing out the attacks on me before I counter-attack.

If you don't want to be personally attacked, please stop personally attacking first.....you and your 2 identical twins.

Why whine to Host Chris? How many times has Host Chris told you that this blog site is not about ME or any BLOGGER! It is about the ideas and messages the bloggers present. What ideas and messages have you presnented on this thread? What computation or analysis have you provided? What light have you shed on the affordability of these parking decks to the Naperville Taxpayer?

Are you really this dense, Fed Up With the Noise, that you don't get it?

I am glad the Moderator is being more than fair and allowing me to defend myself and my positions. Why don't you lay off before the Moderator shuts the door again.

Do you see me chasing you and your 2 identical twins on other threads and attacking you about issues that don't interest me? I am not interested in you and your 2 identical twins. I am interested in the fleecing of the residential taxpayers by the City of Naperville on these parkng decks. That is it....pure and simple.

Have a nice evening. Try to respect the Moderator's latest comment. I will once again respect his comments and see if we can debate important issues that concern the residents in this town and their pocket books. Let us call a TRUCE on personal attacks one more time and see if we can hold it for 5 months instead of 5 days. Let us give the Moderator a break from all this nonsense. It is nothing but nonsense and I am 100% certain I don't start it everytime the Moderator arranges a new truce.

LET THE TRUCE BEGIN RIGHT NOW!!! LET US ALL HONOR IT!!!

Councilman Bob,

Is there any chance we can get an update on this library deck? I heard and read that certain councilmen had a change of heart and want to halt it for now or cancel it permanently.

I also understand that there are certain council members like Dick Furstenau who do not want it halted due to $1 million in sunk costs.

Furthermore, it appears we are paying $40,000 to build each parking spot not including interest, land, and maintenance. A builder of parking garages who has blogged on this site in recent days, states these parking spots can be built for $30,000 each. He has actually built some parking garages in the past.

If this is the case, can you please give us an explanation as to why City Staff contracted to build the parking deck for $40,000 a parking spot instead of $30,000 a spot? If we have 500 parking spots at this library deck we are speaking of a $5 million difference. This is a significant differnce that can cut the budget deficit in half. If considering the savings on interest it can wipe out the entire budget deficit.

Why is the city not being more aggressive in obtaining competitive bids that could save the taxpayers significant money?

I hope we can obtain some answers from City Staff and you can publish them for us to all read. Your time to obtain some answers for the taxpayers is much appreciated.

Re Against The Library Deck 2/12 @ 4:06p...

I just saw your post and I'll get you a reply shortly. The proposed Library Deck is a very important issue to me. There are no plans to begin construction until 2012 at the earliest. Bids from construction companies haven't been solicited, although some architectural and engineering work for the project has been done. I'd like to provide a more complete reply to your questions, so I'll be asking city staff to pull together the relevant info in the next few days. Enjoy the weekend, everybody!! ~CM Bob.

Moderator Chris,

If no bids have been solicited as CM Bob has indicated, I am glad. However, where did the Naperville Sun gets its information to publish in a few articles that this library deck will cost us $19.9 million dollars?

Where are wires being crossed between Sun Reporters and City Officials?

Why are we encountering $1 million in "sunk costs" as Fustenau has stated if the project has not been contracted out?

Even if money was spent on architectural and engineering plans, I do not see why these same architectual and engineering plans would have to revised in 2012 or later for the same exact plot of land in the same exact location with same exact number of trees. Since the city does not have to obtain permits from itself, I doubt that we will have additional permit fees for inspecton of the same site at a later date.

I am thrilled the library deck will be postponed for 4 more years at least. I think it will give us a better feel to see if we really even need it. I think City Officials finally figured we had excess parking as I have been pointing out for months, I mean years, on this blog site.

We currently have 4000 parking spots for 1 million sq. ft of space. If we only need 2.04 spots per 1000 as CM Bob has indicated we only need 2040 parking spots. We have 2000 excess spots without even building the 500 spot library deck and the 500 spot Water St. deck. With those 2, we will have over 5000 parking spots which is enough for 2.5 million square feet of retail space and office space. That is 150% more space than we currently have according to Executive Director Patti Roberts of the Downtown Naperville Alliance.

Today, while driving home from Life Time Fitness, I could not help but notice that "Right Start" suddenly went out of business joining Washington Mutual, Tessa's, Le'Artist and the Antigue Shop all located on Jefferson between Main and Washington on one single block. The Underground Botique shop right on the corner of Main and Jefferson is also closing down. Sharper Image also on Jefferson collapsed a few months ago and remains vacant.

I also noticed Cosi on Washington St.went out of business recently. That replaced another restaurant(Carrie's I think) that replaced Washington Square. A few stores north a sizeable restaurant/bar that lasted 2 months remains vacant for over a year now.

On Chicago Ave. I noticed a necklace and jewelery store went out of business next to Al's Beef that went out of business a month after it opened and remains vacant for nearly 2 years. I never even got a chance to test their roast beef before they closed down. Also some extremely overpriced Wild Rose clothing store that replaced Century Tiles lasted about a month and went out of business in the same plaza. I think they thought Naperville had real money instead of home equity money. A second Antique shop at 22 E. Chicago Ave also went out of business. Also part of Salon Suites has been boarded up for a while which may mean it decided to downsize...not sure! The new mattress store in that same plaza has Liquidation Signs selling everthing at 75% off. Those stores remind me of Persian Carpet stores that open up so they can have an out of business liquidation sale where they make their money on the way out. Kind of a gimmick if you will. Circuit City is going out of business but their prices are much higher than Best Buys. Beware buyer...don't be fooled and fleeced by these liquidation and out of businss sales. Sometimes that is the only time a retailer makes a TRUE PROFIT.

A little east but officially out of the downtown on Chicago Avenue, Hallmark's Card went out of business after nearly 44 years. I am sure e-mail cards finally finished that store off. It seemed like it hung in there hopelessly the last few years hoping computers would crash world wide!

The vacancies in downtown seem to be increasing at the rate of one per week lately. It puzzles me that new buildings are going up with such a high vacancy rate downtown in such a bad economy. It would be wise for the Promenade Expansion owner to consider postponing construction until the economy recovers. He had a ground retailer named Acorn go out of business and his location is still vacant. Not sure what is going happening on the second and third floors in that huge building. I assume they have some vacancies like everywhere else.

If city officials think the sales tax revenue was bad in 2008, wait until they see 2009 with all these additional vacancies. Thank God they are not building the library deck. They have no money and will have less year unless they plan on increasing residential real estate taxes by 50%. I don't think they would dare in this economy.

While normally an economy recovers a year and a half after a recession, this is no recession. It is a depression and the economy can take 15 years to recover from a depression as took place in Japan from 1992 to 2007. The Japan depression was caused by a massive bursting of the real estate bubble and the devastation of the banking system. That is what we are experiencing here in the good old USA.

In Japan and Hong Kong during the real estate bubble, ordinary condos were going for 10 to 20 million. Now they can be bought 15 years later for 1 to 2 million. In America, Wall Street Executives were getting 10 to 20 million bonuses during this bubble. I suspect 15 years later they will only be getting 1 to 2 million in bonuses. I am thankful to President Obama for limiting CEO pay to $500,000 when they receive taxpayer funds as almost every bank, investment house, brokerage firm and auto manufacturer in the country is currently receiving.

Have a nice evening Host Chris and try to get some rest. Sorry to pour so much bad news on you in one post but that is what I observed driving home tonight. It could be a lot worse next time I drive home. Let us hope not!

I don't know off the top of my head where the city's cost estimate came from, but we didn't make it up. It would have been something they gave us. If I had to guess I would say it was probably an estimate by their planners. I think any time a city proposes a project they estimate how much it will cost and that is of course a big factor behind if it gets approved. They don't solicit bids until the project is approved, and then you find out how much it actually costs.

Moderator Chris,

If what you are stating is accurate and I have no reason to doubt that it is, maybe the city can try to locate "Been There....Built a Few" as a contractor to build this deck. He really sounded like an expert to me. Not the friendliest guy I encountered in my life, but sometimes those are the no nonsense kind of guys who "whip" their employees and get the job done quickly and efficiently.

If he can build it for $5 million less than the planners, architects and engineers estimated, more power to him. Of course, I am totally against buidling this library deck due to the undesirable location and I don't believe the need is there. I also feel new large buildings that sit on entire blocks like the Promenade should have underground parking which is not that much more expensive than overground parking and when you factor in land costs, it is actually much cheaper.

Why destroy the beauty of the library setting because we care more about a man worth over a 100 million dollars saving a few dollars because he does not want to spend it on underground parking? He would probably have to pay 100% for this underground parking. As we all know he only had to pay for 25 parking spots in-lieu-of-parking for not building an underground garage. What a joke? Hugo's needs more than 25 parking spots at lunch, at dinner and at night when the bar is active. Sometimes I wonder how qualified our City Staff really are. I wonder how many of them got jobs because of connections instead of qualifications. That is another subject for another day.

An underground parking garage would have cost him at least 10 million dollars and he hands us $339,000 for his parking obligations and leaves us hanging with an $11.5 million budget deficit to handle many of his responsibilites in the downtown.

Anyway, I am looking forward to hearing from CM Bob. He always brings valuable information to this blog site. He may have to post it on the Legislator's Thread as this thread may be off the Main Page by then and will have less viewership.

I don't know anything "expert" about building underground parking. I would assume there would be quite a bit involved in making sure the site so close to the river can handle such an engineering project as far as water tables/flooding issues, bedrock and existing buildings/infrastructure within proximity to the planned venture, among other things I don't have the expertise to identify. There must also be quite a difference with building underground parking that leaves the above ground elevation as it was and intact, as opposed to underground parking that has building and infrastructure above it. How many floors, how deep would one need to go on this site to create the same spaces planned above ground?

PBBS--if you are so concerned about the cost of above ground (overground [sic]) parking facilities, why would you suggest an underground facility that must be quite a bit more expensive to engineer and build, especially on a site that is already developed?

AnnE.,

I am no expert. City Hall which literally sits on the river has one underground level of parking and one above ground level. I never heard of flooding there. So it must have been engineered properly. I once read about minor cracking but I believe that problem was remedied successfully. I guess that is your proof that underground parking near a river is possible.

The Promenade Site is 3 blocks North of the river and it should have been required to build undergroud parking at the time it was being built. It may be too late now even though the Promenade Expansion has not been built. With money you can usually do anything. So I guess it is still possible. Dubai builds islands in the sea and builds high rise hotels on them using Dutch engineering experitise.

Both buildings are about 200,000 sq. ft. Exactly 34 parking spots surround the buildings and according to the city the building is given credit for this lateral street parking. If you believe the city, these buildings only need 75 additional parking spots. The Promenade Expansion according to CM Bob only needs 25 more parking spots and I am assuming the larger building which is twice as large would only need 50 for a total of 75 according to fuzzy city ordinances.

If you believe the city these 2 buildings only need 109 spots. That to me makes no sense. Even if you go with their official formula of 2.04 it would need 408 parking spots. With the 50-50 formula they are only required to pay for 204 spots and we the taxpayers have to pay for the other 204 spots. Very confusing! Maybe, CM Bob can shed some light on the 50-50 formula which I find very unusual.

If you go with the formula applied everywhere else outside of downtown you need 5 spots per 1000 sq.ft. or 1000 parking spots for a 200,000 sq. ft. building.

If you only need 75 parking spots, the building would only need one underground level. If you need 204 spots, you would need 2 underground levels. If you need 408, you may need 4 underground levels. Even if the building needs 1000 parking spots, 408 underground would have helped immensely and at least the need for the library deck could have been eliminated.

I believe when the city says this building only needs 75 additional spots, it is trying to give the well connected developer and well connected law firm a big break at taxpayer expense. I think they used fuzzy math to arrive at only 75.

Anyone who observes that building and its future sister, knows that it needs way more than 75 parking spots until up to 10pm at night when Hugo Patrons begin fizzling out. Hugo Patrons are older folks and don't stay out till 1am. They are usually out of that place by 11pm. When Hugo is packed earlier in the evening, it alone needs these 75 spots and it is only 1/50th of the size of both buildings. On Friday and Saturday the Hugo Valet use the 34 spots that circle the building. Go figure how we only need 75 spots for this massive buidling!

One day hopefully the exchange of information we will uncover the truth. I suspect we will find the City of Naperville did not play by the rules and used fuzzy math to help out well connected establishment folks at taxpayer expense. (Just like the Feds give Wall Street executives billions of dollar in bonuses from our taxpayer money.) That is my opinion and I hope to prove it one day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. AnnE., if you factor in the cost of land, underground usually is less expensive than overground parking. No one has yet identified the cost of 2 acres in downtown Naperville but I believe it is way over 5 million dollars.

If it is our duty to subsidize, why are we not subsidizing all these businesses in the downtown district that are going out of business, instead of the landlords who run them out of business with unaffordable rent increases?

It seems like the small business owner in downtown is the one who needs taxpayer assistance and not the well to do landlords who seem to have deep pockets and sustaining power to weather any storm.

Uncle Sam subsidizeded the greedy banks and they took the money and paid it out in bonuses. Why did Uncle Sam not directly help the homeowner who was defaulting on his monthly payments and being booted out on the street? I believe that would have been a better stimulous to our economy and wiser use of taxpayer money if it must be given away to save the economy.

It seems like Uncle Sam and Uncle Naperville both have the pecking order all wrong....completely reversed.

Councilman Bob,

Here is a summary of buiding the library parking deck at $20,000,000 instead of $15,000,0000. Hopefully, you and your fellow city council members can push the City Staff to obtain qualified competitive bids, to build this parking deck for 30k instead of 40k a parking spot, if and when it is going to be built. For the record, I am personally against this elephant earmark project as I believe it is in an inappropriate location and is not needed due to excess parking capacity in the downtown, considering at least 25 business have went out of businesses in the last year. Even before these businesses bit the dust, parking seemed plentiful in the downtown.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

At $20,0000,0000 or $40k per parking spot here is the cost based on 500 spots:

Cost to Build: $20,000,000.

Cost to Finance for 30 years at 6.75%: $26,699,063

Cost to Maintain at $7500 per parking spot: $3,750,000

===============================

Total Expenditure = $50,449,063

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

At $15,000,000 or $30k per parking spot here is the cost based on 500 spots:

Cost to Build: $15,000,000

Cost to Finance for 30 years at 6.75%: $20,024,297

Cost to Maintain at $7500 per parking spot: $3,750,000

====================================

Total Expenditure = $38,774,297

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The difference or savings is $11,674,766 which is more than our entire deficit in the annual budget. Apparently, our engineering and architectural staffs at City Hall have overestimated the cost to build this library parking deck.

I am asking and pleading with you and the entire city council to put City Staff under a microscope and question their very high estimate to build this library deck. I am also asking you and your fellow city councilmen to make sure we obtain aggressive, qualified and competitive bids.

The good old times are gone and our City Staff needs to learn how to be frugal just like the Naperville Homeowners. The days of going to a bank and arranging for a home equity loan to finance your 10k or 20k real estate tax bill are gone for good and may never return. We, the residents and taxpayers, need to have the money saved these days in advance or we lose our homes in foreclosure. Please do all in your power to make sure our city does its best for its taxpayers.

Thank you very much, Councilman Bob.

If according to the Feds, both Democrats and Republicans, taxes need to be reduced as a stimulant to the economy, why did the City of Naperville raise sales tax 1% for the cultural funds and then later another 1.5% more for the parking garages?

Raising taxes does not stimulate the economy. It could be why so many vacancies exist in the downtown. Maybe, the financially sound landlords need to pay for these parking garages and not the taxpayers who have additional sales tax levied on their dinner bills and purchase receipts every time they visit the downtown. Just a thought....

Moderator Chris,

The State of Califonia is reported to have a $42 billion operating budget deficit. It is not clear if they can overcome it or be required to file for bankruptcy.

One of the drastic measures the State of California has taken is reduce the days per week its employees work from 5 days to 4 days. Of course they only get paid for 4 days. Many other drastic reductions have taken place including to their pension and health systems.

Even with all these drastic reductions the Republican Governor needs a lot of help from the Democratic President or they will have to file for bankruptcy.

I was reading in your Naperville Sun that the City of Naperville had to float another 50 million dollars in municipal bonds for many improvement projects. It disturbs me that our improvements are made from borrowed bonds instead of revenue from taxes. This will put a massive tax burden on us and our children in the future.

I feel strongly that the City of Naperville has wasteful ways that prevent it from making repairs to our infrastructure without issuing municipal bonds.

Taxpayers in general are charged $1000 to $6000 in city and park district taxes per year depending on the value of their homes. In neighboring Oak Brook, residents do not pay city and park district real estate taxes due to a healthy retail base. Despite, our downtown retail base being subsidized and equal in size to a large 4 anchor shopping mall, it increases instead of decreases our real estate taxes.

In my opinion, this is as a result of our City Staff and City Council deciding to focus on enriching the well connected developers instead of reducing the burden of taxation on the residential homeowner. It is just a matter of time before the City of Naperville self-destructs as California self destructed. Let us not forget that not too long ago, California was the state that was envied by the other 49 states. No one is immune from the effects of wasteful spending. And keep in mind cities and states can not issue money....only the Feds can issue money. And the cost to the Feds printing money uncontrollably is a devaluation of the dollar bill until one day in the next century it will have written 1,000,000 on it instead of 1. If you want to leave your childen and gradchildren some money as inheritance, it is a good idea to leave them GOLD and not US DOLLAR BILLS.

* California just announced 20,000 lay-offs of state workers.

* Notices go out tomorrow.

* I guess this means government can not tax its residents in a limitless manner.

* 2 million homes will be repossessed by the banks this year....twice as much as last year.

* Most foreclosures are no longer of the sub-prime type. More forclosures are prime now than sub-prime.

* If States and Cities do not buckle down, we will have another 8 million homes in foreclosure in the next 4 years according to CNN

* Kansas is also broke and announced it has no money for tax refunds.

* I would advise all Illinois residents to ask their employers to withdraw the minimum amount of withholding out of their payroll taxes as I believe Illinois is about to follow Kansas due to their massive pension deficit and other problems.

* In these economic times it is better to owe the state money on April 15, than have the State of Illinois owe you money. Kansas residents will not be getting refunds this year....will Illinois residents get tax refunds this year???? What about next year?

You are getting a little off topic from the original subject of this thread.

Moderator Chris,

In his State of the City address, Mayor Pradel mentioned these are hard times and he had to leave 20 positions vacant and lay-off 26 others or vice versa.

I think the point I was trying to make is that if we don't seriously buckle up in Naperville, we could one day be the next Kansas or California. I think Naperville is much safer than the State of Illinois or the City of Chicago for now. But I would like to see Naperville remain vibrant and viable by saving some money for the rainy days instead of always borrowing to fix and repair.

Anytime you borrow, it always costs you twice as much to fix or repair. Most companies that were heavily leveraged have filed bankruptcy or on the verge of bankruptcy. Companies that are cash rich like Intel, Microsoft, and Buffalo Wild Wings are doing well in this economy. The other day Buffalo went up 7 bucks a share in one day due to their hefty sales and profits combined with no debt. I had recommended this stock to your viewers before it popped $7 dollars in one day. Hopefully, some of them bought it.

Sometimes you get off topic to try to make a point. Hopefully, the point will be well taken by city officials and they will cut down on borrowing a little bit.

I am just glad to see States and Cities willing to file bankruptcy intstead of creaming the taxpayers for their mistakes. That is how it should be. Taxpayers can not be burdened for all the mistakes of government. GM and Chrysler are reducing pension benefits, health benefits and legacy costs to make it....some of it is being justifiably forced by government due to subsidization. Ironically, government is asking private corps to chop their legacy costs but has not yet cut its own legacy costs.

The US Government just gave the Head Master of the US Post Office a raise from $178,000 to $268,000 last year despite losing 3 billion dollars in one year. Now he wants to rasie 1st class mail by 2 cents so he can be assured of plenty of money available to pay for his new salary.

If the State and City, want to continue with their 75% pensions while civilians loose their retirement benefits(Dow was down near 300 points today to 7552...low of the decade is 7449) that is fine with me as long as they file bankruptcy instead of asking the taxpayers to make up the difference of what these pension funds lost in the last year.(estimated to be approaching 40%.....Dow revisited the lows of the last DECADE today......It could easily go under 7000 from its 14100 peak wiping out half of the pension funds.)

Only time will tell if City OFFICIALS decide to stiff the residential Naperville Taxpayers for all the loses sustained by the pension funds of the City of Naperville. Somebody has to come up with the LOSS in value of the pension funds by nearly 40%-50% in the last 18 months. I JUST HOPE IT AIN'T US!

Promenade Building being Subsidized-

Just to be correct, Mayor Pradel did not have an official Naperville city government “State of the City” address in Lisle. It was only one of the monthly membership luncheons put on by the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce where George Pradel gave a talk during lunch. This was a paid commercial event and not anything official to do with the City of Naperville. The Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce billed it as a “State of the City” address as part of their marketing and advertising. They could’ve of called it anything they wanted. They, and their members, were the ones paying for it.

I would hate for you to get Councilman Bob upset again by this mistake and stop responding to you here as he did with me.

Appalled Taxpayer and Citizen,

I think your first paragraph is mostly semantics. It is not worth responding too.

Councilman Bob is a brave man and known for his transparency.

He is not going to get upset if someone makes a mistake. He will correct the mistake that person made.

I have confidence Councilman Bob will keep his promise and report back on the library parking deck expenditures and estimates.

I have been blogging on here for over 3 years and he is yet to break a promise. He is a credible man of impeccable reputation.

I think a couple of bloggers tried to get under his skin by claiming there was a conspiracty. I am sure he can see this is all childish and nonsense.

Citizens have a right to question their government's spending habits. That is all yourself, others and I are doing. When a government fails to respond, one has to assume it is hiding something.

The City of Naperville never responded to the citizens and media requests for the Napergate Man's legal costs. We all know they had something to hide and burned all the records. Imagine, they even blew off establishment friendly Editor Tim West when he dared ask them for the records. That was the only time Mr. West got emotional and agitated in his 35 year long career with the Naperville Sun.

I don't think the City of Naperville is going to play this game again. They know Editor Tim West will not stand for it a second time and they don't want to upset him. They need him in their camp. Taxpayers are just too smart these days and are well connected through the internet. Word can spread faster these days!

There is no doubt in my mind that CM Bob will report to us soon. Unless, City Staff and his fellow Councilmen told him we will CENSURE you as we censured CM Furstenau if you continue providing transparency to the taxpayers.

CM Bob is no push over. If the city threatened him, he would sue the living daily lights out of the city. And I believe he is a very good lawyer so he does not even need to hire a lawyer. Have confidence, Appalled, in Councilman Bob.

Promenade Building being Subsidized-

I have to take exception to your characterization of my last post as “mostly semantics”. This is just the type of dismissive, cavalier attitude that has allowed the plethora of scandals we have seen at the local, state, and national levels.

I don’t believe that we, United States Citizens, would find it “mostly semantics” to have our annual State of the Union address held in Canada and paid for by a group of American businesses. But this is exactly what happened here in Naperville. My comments above explain the details so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice it to say the no one who posted comments here, in any official capacity, has responded directly and completely in an effort to clear this up once and for all. Not Councilman Bob, not Richard Greene from the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, not Richard Brink from the Hilton Lisle/Naperville. They have certainly provided their standard marketing pitches but that’s about it. The appearance of impropriety remains.

I must admit that my confidence in Councilman Bob resolving this is waning.

Just what Naperville needs - another lawsuit with a councilman. Cant hardly afford the one that is in place now.

Appalled Taxapayer and Citizen,

I think you may have misunderstood me. I did not like your wording but I do agree with you that holding the State of the City in Lisle is ridiculous.

I also don't like that the State of the City address is held by a private company for selected individuals who pay.

It should be held in a large auditorium and open to the public. I have lived in this town for over 40 years and have never attended a State of the City addresss or been invited to one. All because I refuse to join the worthless Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce.

So I am in your camp. I like your point. Wanted you to be more to the point......that is all. Semantics confuse me!

It has been a long time since CB Bob promised to respond so I am getting a litte nervous that he is being pressured by City Officials. I may have to make an appointment and visit him if we don't get an answer befor the elections some time. Maybe he was pressured. These politicians can gang up on anyboby who does not conform. CM BOB and CM FURSTENAU refuse to conform. Kudos to them both! We need to support them.

BTW, why did CM Bob stop responding to you? Why is he upset at you?
Ask you question again. Maybe he missed it. He has answered all my questions in the past. Very thoroughly may I add.

Councilman Bob,
I am still awaiting the answer to my question that you promised to explore and get back to me.

Thank you.