My belief is that the Orland Park comparable ex-urban ramp-wrap situation will also prove failed, (Orland Park being a Chicago suburb larger than Ramsey and already with shops and restaurants), and that it might be around to see as failed or not when we get to vote on the four council seats that will be up in November 2012. My hope is that way, either way, a success or a failure in the Chicago 'burbs, but something beyond a blank slate when we vote for or against the pattern the gang-of-four decision making has inflicted by virtue of being an ongoing council majority without any of the four yet showing any signs of independence and of possibly deviating from an unbroken string of rank-and-file voting instances.
So far the cost of expanding the ramp is the cost of subsidizing Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Collins and their adventuring, and it amounts to millions of dollars given away in subsidy already, without even considering additional subsidy via the city playing banker to those private-sector partial-risk takers. My feelings about all that remain as already stated and this post is not aimed at restating them, but instead the aim is to examine the reported vote (after having given some opening context).
So moving on with all that as a prelude to Sakry's report, here, of last Monday's special meeting - with Sakry reporting:
Ramsey HRA gives Flaherty and Collins third purchase agreement extension
Government, News | Saturday, August 20, 2011 8:01 am by Tammy Sakry, Staff Writer
Flaherty and Collins Properties has been given a third purchase agreement amendment by the Ramsey Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA).
The HRA voted Aug. 15 4-0 during special meeting to give the company until Nov. 1 to move forward with the purchase agreement.
The last extension gave it until Aug. 15.
HRA members Jeff Wise and Randy Backous were absent.
Until then the city and Flaherty and Collins Properties will be working out the finance, real estate and tax increments financing agreements, according to Darren Lazan, Ramsey’s development manager .
Flaherty and Collins Properties is proposing to purchase a 3.03 acre parcel west of the municipal parking ramp to build a 221-unit luxury apartment complex with nine two-story rental townhomes.
The total project cost is estimated around $28 million.
I attended that meeting. I bailed out on it when there was micro-management futzing about Lake Bob in the project, different possible arrangements of the artificial water body with housing and/or other use, and I could not take that futzing around any longer. There had been no vote prior to that switch-over from Flaherty being there and having left, and the micro-management exercise. Wise was there when I left.
My understanding is that the meeting broke up or was about to, when someone [probably Tom Bray] noted that the existing agreement with Flaherty-&-Collins was set to expire midnight that day, and there'd been no vote.
Strommen had yet to win the balance of the Jeffrey Ward 4 term in the election held the following day, so that is one membership not voting. (Strommen, I believe, is set to be sworn in and take her council and HRA seat prior to business at this Tuesday's council-HRA meeting - and you know the format - the interesting big-dollar stuff last, i.e., the HRA last after the seven wear their council hats and proceed on the little stuff before donning HRA hats, etc.).
Backous and Wise for personal reasons were absent also, last Monday, when the neglect of voting and extending contractual things was realized and neither could be summoned to a vote at that point; or that is my understanding. It is what Sakry reported.
The Jason Tossey position: From past events I view Councilmember Tossey as a skeptic of Landform effectiveness and of the merits of the way the Flaherty-&-Collins situation has been contracted (I believe he is on record as not opposing things if entirely a private sector adventure, FC and their bankers footing ALL of the costs, although I have not seen every meeting nor do I have perfect recall). He has appeared to be disinclined in the past to vote for highly subsidized or highly subsidizing proposals and at least a part of his opinions about Landform seems based upon the firm's only proving capable of bringing in highly subsidized proposals.
Seeing that a "4-0" vote was reported by Sakry, i.e., having to include Tossey along with Elvig, McGlone and the mayor as then in attendence, it puzzled me and I contacted Tossey about it. He explained he had made a statement prior to a vote count for express inclusion in the meeting minutes that he elected to not leave the meeting, making it short of a quorem, and to not vote against the proposed extension only to avoid near certain substantial costs of reopening the situation and gaining a majority vote later, after an expiration and renewal situation, as would almost certainly happen, were he to vote no.
In effect he said that he opted for a procedural step, and cost avoidance, for the sake of efficiency and in fact without favoring the thing he voted for it. He expressed a wish that Sakry had contacted him so that I, and others, would not read of a 4-0 vote including him, and be confused.
I will email Tossey, Ulrich, Nelson, Lazan and the mayor noting the post, to assure that I have a proper understanding of events; and in doing that I will ask each of them to add a comment to the post if he/she has a differing understanding.
_____________________
All of this begs the question of how Strommen will vote once regaining a vote, and whether Tossey and Backous will continue skepticism but without any disruption of at least a four vote majority bloc staying constant - a bloc made up of the mayor, McGlone, Wise and Elvig. It is hard for me to envision any of that bloc of four breaking into any independent status with one or more of the four not in lockstep-future-voting, as in the past.
______________________
Curiously, in proofreading, I noted a few paragraphs up when I wrote of "the existing agreement" I had not hit the "s" key strongly enough and spell-check saw a real word and was silent about "the exiting agreement."
Boy, wouldn't that be better? An exiting agreement with Flaherty-&-Collins. I could handle that, without a single tear shed. No crying towel needed. None.