Council Preview 8/12/08

What will the City Council be considering Tuesday night? Well, I thought you’d never ask. Here are the highlights:

  • First off, at-large councilman George Jacob will be attending the meeting via teleconference. Do you ever wonder what the person is doing while teleconferencing in to the meeting? Eating dinner, perhaps? Or watching the Olympics? All of a sudden, we hear him shout “GO USA!” because he forgot to hit the mute button…. Okay, maybe I’m the only one who wonders those things.
  • The City is looking to get an electronic storage system for documents and images. By storing scans of documents and pictures in a centralized database, the City can be more efficient both in terms of physical space and retrieval time. One example given in the council communication is building plans. “Planning, Public Works, Inspections and Fire all receive building plans and each department is storing those plans independently. With this system, the plans can be scanned or saved if in electronic format and shared by all departments rather than each saving the large files and taking up additional space for either disk storage or the paper copies.” Sounds like a good idea. Cost: $81,000. Vendor: Advanced Processing and Imaging, Inc.
  • The City is poised to spend $122,446.20 on a .22-mile bike trail extension with its own storm sewer system along Hickory Grove Rd. This is a curious expense. It’s at 100% city expense. The storm sewer portion will correct a drainage problem that has resulted in some flooding of residential backyards. Can someone tell me when the longstanding drainage issues in the fourth district got corrected that would have moved this fifth-district project up on the priority list?
  • New sidewalks will be constructed around Manual High School. This was in response to Manual students walking in the middle of the road, obstructing traffic, ostensibly because sidewalks were in disrepair or nonexistent. What do you think? Will the construction of these sidewalk improvements keep the kids out of the street?
  • It’s been two years since the City’s 20-year cable franchise agreement with (then) Insight Communications expired. Since then, there have been little extensions of a few months at a time while a new franchise agreement is negotiated. There will be another one of those extensions Tuesday night, this time until June 2009. Maybe someday they’ll actually come to terms on a new franchise agreement.
  • The City will raise cab fares to a realistic level.
  • The City has a chance to put a stop to the proposed three-story office building for Riverfront Village (you know, the big concrete slab on stilts that blocks the view of the river downtown). When the City approved the development back in March 2007, it had a deadline that construction would commence by December 2008. Well, that’s not going to happen, so now the developer wants to extend the deadline to December 2010. The council should be working toward eventually getting that monstrosity torn down, not adding to it. A three-story office building will only exacerbate the problem. This is the perfect opportunity to kill it.
  • There’s a request for the Council to approve a resolution asking the state to raise our taxes supporting the City of Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Olympics.
  • There’s a request to put an electronic billboard at the intersection of I-74 and Knoxville Ave. The Zoning Commission recommended denial. It will be interesting to see if second-district councilmember Barbara Van Auken goes with the Zoning Commission’s advice, or if she votes to approve it anyway.

There’s one more item — the snow plan — but I’ll be looking at that in a separate post, coming up next.

8 thoughts on “Council Preview 8/12/08”

  1. More white elephants on the riverfront from Mike Wisdom. His previous establishments didn’t work and now he wants to add more. Have we finished paying for the first ones yet, in terms of tax relief, etc.? We have a beautiful chance to view the Illinois River, why are we going to spoil it with more concrete and glass?

  2. So, C.J., you apparently had an aesthetic beef with the Riverfront Village project from its inception. And you have discerned that adding a three story office building to the mix would not facilitate your pipedream having the whole complex demolished only a decade after it went up. Every indication is that the City Council will approve the extension of the developer’s deadline to erect the building. More to the point, has it not occurred to you that maybe you and the anti riverfront development crowd lost this battle quite a while back?

  3. Steve — I wasn’t paying too close of attention to the riverfront back when this project began back in the ’90s, so I can’t claim to have foreseen the problems with it. I’m sure whoever built it was sincere and believed this would bring new life to the riverfront. But with the demise of Damon’s and the inability to attract another tenant (until the Heartland Partnership turned it into an office building), something tells me that this project was less than successful — by any measure, not merely aesthetically. I simply think the city should be willing to admit that it was a mistake, well-intentioned as it may have been. Building an office building on top of it will only add insult to injury, in my opinion.

    There’s no question in my mind that the City will extend the deadline; I’m under no illusion that they’ll do the right thing and stop it. But I’m not “anti riverfront development.” There’s good development and bad development. I’m only against the bad kind. When there’s bad development, everyone loses.

  4. Will the construction of these sidewalk improvements keep the kids out of the street?

    My comment:
    NO.

  5. Martin, you are probaly right but i don’t care. These streets have never had sidewalks much less curbs and it is about time this area got equal time. So, who cares if the kids use them?

  6. CJ: Ah yes, more me (5th District) first others last (4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st Districts). Same old same old.

  7. CJ, can you explain what the initial charge refers to that is charged by taxis? I ask because the meter starts out at $2.80 and not at $1.80 if that is what the initial charge is referring to. It’s been over $2.00 for years.

  8. Gerald, as I understand the old ordinance, the initial charge is $1.80, but there’s a surcharge of $1.00 when gas is above $2.40/gallon (I think gas crossed the $2.40 line around 2005). Thus, the meter starts at $2.80.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.