RISKIER THAN RISKY

I concur with the Southtown Editorial’s logic to fund the Metra Triangle Project,” Fails the Smell Test.” To say the least the plan is more riskier than risky. You don’t need a lot of statististics or testimonials from groups who have everything to gain and nothing to lose to conclude that this is a bad deal. If you have common sense and some real life experience you would back off from this plan. Unfortunately that’s not how the OP Administration sees it. They are ready to ram it down our throats.

Let’s look at some of the facts: national unemployment is at 9% and probably 10% in Illinois. Businesses are leaving Illinois and people are following the jobs. I believe 41% of the people between 25 and 54 were unemployed for an average of 27 weeks or longer in 2010 and 2011. This is the target group that OP is looking at to rent too for $1500 -$2000 a month. When I read the newspapers I hear that college grads are having difficulty finding employment. In 2009 the average 1 BR rental apartment went for around $900, the average today is around$1200. Do you really think this group is willing to pay 1500-2000 to live close to a train in OP? If I was a young and up and coming adult I would look to downtown Chicago with all its amenities. On top of it, haven’t they heard that more and more young people are moving back home?

For the life of me I can’t understand the logic in the Village investing in rental units. Here is were common sense and experience comes in. What is the turnover and cost of maintaining a rental building? Maybe there are people who can’t buy and would rent. First and foremost do they have a constant income to pay the rent? The problems with the Village renting are insurmountable. We could be looking at a development investment that could be destroyed within 10-20 years.

I guess the Administration doesn’t realize that the economy is tanking. The Federal Government is in debt to their eyeballs. Orland Park’s debt is nothing to sneeze at. During the last Mayoral Election the Debt was in the vicinity of 100-200 million dollars. The Administration has an obligation to balance the books. They say there is no risk. If there are problems,will the money come out of McLaughlin’s or Grime’s pocket? No, it will come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Orland Park. The Administration has no risk, just being booted out of office.

History tells us that this Administration has not been friendly to the Orland business community; we lost the Andrew Corporation, a lumber company, the Orland Plaza, attempts to bring in Von Mar and other high scale retailers failed. What we’ve gotten was a Fat burger that lasted a year. The Mayor says vacancies are low. Well, ask the people what they think about that estimate. We look at the empty store fronts and failures. That’s what we see not your slant on how good things are. The Mayor is a politician who believes we will fall for his line.

Is this a good deal, “NO”. When a developer comes in with only a million dollar investment for a $62 million project, I say he’s getting a steal. If the project works out and he gets the development, I say that’s a steal. This is highway robbery especially when the developer’s record is anything but superb. With a bankruptcy and tales of faulty workmanship in the background would you give this developer or any developer the opportunity to represent you? With the Mayor’s experience in the plumbing trade I would recommend that he flush this plan and his vision down the drain.

POLITICAL LABELING

I find it interesting that the media spends so much time classifying voters: liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican, Democrat, Independent, religion, right, left, center, race or whatever category they can think of. I would prefer that the pollsters and pundits spend time in asking tough questions so that I can evaluate the candidate to make an intelligent voting decision. . My voting decision should not be based upon some classification system. Since the pollsters and pundits like labels, why not classify candidates as Progressive, Libertarian, Marxist, Socialist, Constitutionalist, Patriot etc. I would like to know the candidates values and how those values relate to their decision making. During the 2008 campaign Hilary Clinton announced she was a Modern Progressive. She was honest as to her ideology. I interpret that to mean she believes in big government, taxation, deficits, one world government, redistribution of wealth etc George W. Bush wasn’t identified as a Progressive Republican until he left office. I believe the media needs to spend more time investigating, researching, asking questions and then classifying a candidate as to his/her ideology. There should be no free ride for any candidate. The voter needs to know more about the candidate than the media knows about the voter.