Latest citizen and politician editorial opinion - Orland Park's Flaherty-&-Collins adventure, as questioned by a county board rep, an elected town official, and a skeptical taxpayer.

Start with the board rep. A Republican. Liz Gorman. Or she says she's one, and I guess anyone can call themselves a Republican, whatever that term is thought to mean. This link. Their "Main Street Triangle" plan as best I can infer is analogous to our Ramsey Town Center - with less failure on the ground at present but aimed in a like direction [although no bozo has shown up there, yet, to say "Rebrand it."]

Cook County Commissioner Gorman in her Sept 11 op-ed writes:

The Village of Orland Park seems to be working hard to convince the public that the Main Street Triangle plan will bring jobs and economic development to our community. It is no secret that 80% of the jobs will go to people who do not reside in Orland Park and those jobs will be temporary and leave upon completion of the project.

But clearly, the people in Orland Park do not believe what they are being told. Is it because the village is not being honest or could it be simply that the village is doing a poor job of conveying the financial facts despite having multiple public relations entities to advocate for this controversial plan?

Clearly, the mission of the village of Orland Park is to provide services to its residents.[...]

We have a community burdened by high taxation and rising expenses in an economic environment that is one of the worst we have faced in generations.

That's why I and other taxpayers in Orland Park are compelled to ask, what is the mission of the Village of Orland Park? Is the village here to provide services or, is the village here to act like a bank? Should the Village of Orland Park be extending a line of credit of some $38 million -- that's $38 million that was described at the recent open house as a Flaherty & Collins Investment.

It is very misleading when you don't have a clear mission to then assert that the $38 million is an F&C Investment when in fact it is the Village that will be obtaining the credit line. It is misleading for the village to also claim that F&C are "partners" when they barely have any skin in this development and the public is left to ask what exactly is it that Flaherty & Collins is actually putting into this lavish, very expensive, and speculative venture.

[...]Taxpayers in Orland Park have serious questions about this project. Will it bring in the benefits that are being promised? Is it what we need at this time when the economy is on the precipice? Who will be renting these units and will people with incomes that would put them in the upper 20 percent of the market spend that money at the location that is being proposed, next to a train station?

The public has serious concerns. And when the public is concerned, rather than rushing ahead with these plans, the Village should be following their instincts to protect the interests of the public. They should be moving slowly and carefully and they should be providing more answers, not rushing through public hearings. One hearing is not enough. After tonight, the taxpayers of Orland Park will still have serious concerns and questions about this project.

I think the public is smart. They have learned the very difficult lesson that if it sounds too good to be true, maybe it is not.

I urge the Village Board to postpone their rush on this project, to listen more to the public, provide more information to the public and stand with a public that has been knocked around by this economy.[...]

Ramsey should be represented at the county level by such a prudent person, averse to headlong arguably irrational levels of public risk in private sector adventuring. One against profligate spending. One vocally so.

Next, this link, a Village of Orland Park Board of Trustees member, (the equivalent of a City of Ramsey Council member), Brad O'Halloran, had Patch publish this Sept 10 written opinion:

[from OP village website]

I have been a trustee in the Village of Orland Park for the past 18 years. While there have been many challenging issues during this time, none has had the potential economic impact on the Village’s finances to the degree the proposed “9750 On The Park” project will have.

As such, it is the single biggest financial vote in 20 years. When I first became a trustee the village’s overall debt was around  $18 million, today it is $79 million. The proposed 9750 project would almost double that debt to $144 million.  To put things in perspective, the 9750 project’s debt of $65 million is greater than the debt of the new police station, the Sportsplex, the new library, the new train station, the public works facility and the old police station renovation----COMBINED. [...]

I received the final details of this deal in my weekly village package on Aug. 13th in the form of a 5 inch ring binder stuffed full of details. I’ve been trying to absorb them ever since.

While it’s certainly true that I knew this project was in the works for quite some time, this was the first time I saw the final business terms and was given the third party report that analyzed the risk factors involved. In addition I always assumed there would be plenty of time for debate with public hearings and the traditional village committee process, prior to any final vote.

[...]I’ve been soliciting my own input from the same neighbors, friends, former coaches and local business folk I’ve relied on for years and whose opinions I respect. And we’ve hit on some common themes.

1.) This is no time for anyone to be doubling his or her amount of debt. If I wouldn’t do it as an individual or business, why would the village ever consider it? If there is one common thread to the current problems in our state and country it is one thing, too much debt.

2.) A partnership is just that. 50/50 or 60/40 or even 70/30, but 96/4, I don’t think so.

3.) The Village has no business being in the Apartment business. If this is such a good idea then let the private sector have at it, but don’t risk my money by using public funds.

[... T]his project is perceived to be the linchpin of the village’s downtown redevelopment. A vision the Mayor and this board have worked on for many years. A vision I must say I share and have supported to date. A vision that has been many, many years in the making.

Unfortunately, I think with respect to the [Flaherty-&-Collins] 9750 project maybe there’s been a little too much tunnel vision. Too much focus on the end result and the beautiful renderings and rosy projections and not enough focus on the economic uncertainty in both our state and country, and the fact that these funds are the funds of our citizens. [...]

[...]So in the end I guess I must concur with the folks I spoke with and the common sense input they offered and respectfully disagree with you Mr. Mayor and say no to the proposed financing of “9750 On The Park.”

Third item, expressing a citizen's Sept. 6 judgments and frustrations, here.

With Regard to Parallels between Orland Park and Ramsey: Together the items show a generally identical gambling-with-public-funds propensity among inexperienced unsophisticated city officials, some being small business operators wanting to swim with the big fish in the big pond. There are differing details between Orland Park and Ramsey, but in each Flaherty-&-Collins appears unwilling to put anything beyond token adventurer-promoter capital behind a questionable project, instead asking municipal government to deviate greatly from normal municipality functions by gambling millions on a private-sector adventure, a landlord's game, and to shift from being a normally functioning town to become instead a property developer and banker for a project the out-of-town, out-of-state, promoter wants enough to promote, but not enough to take the lion's share of the clear and substantial risks.

It is risk shifting of what is a traditional private sector Crabgrass risk [Developers ARE Crabgrass], and fobbing it off on taxpayers. This done, with the taxpayers in both instances not being offered a referendum's say in things. In each instance the fobbing off is by all-too-willing town officials prone to big-time gambling with money that is taxpayer money. Each place, there appear to be individual town officials willing to gamble and play at being real estate savants, where sophistication in such things is lacking at the public official decision-making levels - at least in Ramsey.

In each instance some in a minority within the deciding officials say, "If the promoter pays, and the town does not get into being a bank, then let the promoter roll his dice."

In each instance citizens have declared, "Dumb idea. A failure-prone adventure, big time, in all likelihood. So don't do it, at all; or if you persist give us at least a referendum's chance to show you our beliefs."

Nobody has a crystal ball, and while the norm is the private profit-seeker is the risk taker, in each city Mr. David Flaherty has shown up smooth talking the folks, and in each case there are a handful of pliant officials willing to risk-shift to the government.

In each case that is an unsound extension of what local government should do.

Also, I bet the roads in Orland Park need long term attention too, and yet the bonding-spending is for fluff and high-risk play. Each town is NOT a casino. Officials should behave accordingly.


____________UPDATE___________
Aside from Village of Orland Park Board of Trustees member Brad O'Halloran's written op-ed explaining his opposition to Flaherty-Collins adventuring in his town, in Patch here, there is also reporting about it in another local OP area news outlet, here, for readers who might desire more information about the parallel situation to ours, in Ramsey.