Council Meeting 6/25: Orr Farm Annexation

The public did not participate in the public hearings last night.

There were three of them, of most general interest probably concerning the annexation of the Orr Farm to Park 88. One of the most puzzling of proponents’ assertions is that the development of this property will alleviate flooding in the nearby, long-suffering east-side neighborhood called Dodge.

Since commercial and industrial development of farmland has only rarely improved bad drainage situations, this needs to be explained. It would help if there were any decent maps available, but apparently not even aldermen have access to much. And they expect the citizenry to speak knowledgably in public on this issue?

That’s not to say that people aren’t talking outside of the meetings. After the Council adjourned, a resident of the aforementioned area detailed the flooding of the Wurlitzer pond that sometimes results in sewage backups and floating logs (as in the wooden kind, but still). I believe this gentleman intends to take his story to the Sanitary District but it’s too bad he did not speak to the city as well; it’s not the Sanitary District that puts in the buildings and pavement.

If blogging were my day job, I’d also be talking here about the Daley Group lobbying contract and the meeting-minutes controversy, both of which have more discussion going on outside of Council chambers than inside–by the regular joes, anyway. Those topics will have to wait a bit unless someone wants to start something in the comments.

Chronicle coverage here.

4 thoughts on “Council Meeting 6/25: Orr Farm Annexation”

  1. If the Daley Group did *NOT* request a pay/fee increase, then why in the heck did Mark B. give them one? How many employees are there? Sycamore pays her/them $68,000 per year and DeKalb paid them $60,000 a year and will now pay them $72,000. How many employees are there? One? Two? Eight? Where else do they work?

    Mark B. said she/it/they have not had a pay/fee increase since they were hired years ago. If they did not request a pay increase, then perhaps they have been OVERPAID for years.

  2. The whole scene was absurd. Biernacki was asking for a pay increase on Daley Group’s behalf but Daley had not requested such. Ald. Povlsen called it an out-and-out setup, which I took to mean that the situation was manipulated to force the aldermen to invite Daley in to speak for herself. They didn’t take the bait, however. Ald. Gorski put forward an amendment to keep the contract at $60,000. The amended resolution passed.

    As I understand it, the $60,000 is a flat annual fee AND the city is charged for her expenses as well.

    IMO there are several things wrong with re-authorizing the mayor to contract with Daley Group:

    –A lobbyist, almost by definition nowadays, is another pig at the earmark trough. How long can the sheer volume of earmarks that we’ve seen over the past several years be sustained? SHOULD it be sustained?

    –Even if we agree that some earmarks are OK, we supposedly already have a pig at that trough. His name is Rep. Hastert. Maybe our time would be better spent finding someone who represents us better.

    –Daley should never have taken on Sycamore. The moment she did, an inherent conflict of interest was born.

    –Our dependence on Daley for funding for infrastructure projects has left us blind to other options, such as hiring our own grant writer (for about $40,000 per year to start).

    At least we’re not paying more. Bet that’s not true of the firefighters’ contract, though–how come we didn’t get to see those figures??

Leave a Reply