Watch the City Council Meeting
First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Chumbalone

Sacramento, CA

#123 Dec 10, 2012
Someone wrote:
Enough studies already. Robinson has spent the last 2 yrs doing studies and studies of the studies. All that has come out of it is the same answers!
I agree...NO MORE STUDIES. There was a presentation of the work that MUST BE DONE. Lockport CANNOT pay for ALL the work with drips and dribbles of money. Lockport has the OPPORTUNITY to apply for a low interest loan to get funding to GET STARTED on ALL THE WORK. Lockport does NOT have the funding on hand to pay for it all at once...BUT WE NEED TO GET STARTED...no more waiting. BID OUT THE WORK...JUST GET STARTED.....and stop all this council war BULLS---! This taking sides crap has got to end...no more studies...no more vetos...no more wasting time. GET MOVING !! OR GET OUT ....ALL OF YOU !
Lockport

Lockport, IL

#124 Dec 10, 2012
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> I agree...NO MORE STUDIES. There was a presentation of the work that MUST BE DONE. Lockport CANNOT pay for ALL the work with drips and dribbles of money. Lockport has the OPPORTUNITY to apply for a low interest loan to get funding to GET STARTED on ALL THE WORK. Lockport does NOT have the funding on hand to pay for it all at once...BUT WE NEED TO GET STARTED...no more waiting. BID OUT THE WORK...JUST GET STARTED.....and stop all this council war BULLS---! This taking sides crap has got to end...no more studies...no more vetos...no more wasting time. GET MOVING !! OR GET OUT ....ALL OF YOU !
You touch on two topics that need to be separated in order to be understood.

You are correct, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. You are also correct that Lockport doesn't have the money to do all the work. The confusion that I and a number of residents have is this. If Robinson must do this work immediately in order to qualify for a loan then how does Lockport pay back that loan? Paying back the loan really isn't an issue until you understand that the entire Turner gang campaign for next Spring is lowering the water rates. As I watched the meeting last week I just kept asking myself over and over how does Turner plan to pay back the loan? If the water revenue doesn't cover the payments for the loan then what is used as collateral? The mayor is right when he stated that our property taxes would have to go up in order to cover the loan.

Let's look at the issue another way. What some members of the council are proposing is no different than what led to the housing crisis. There was a time in the recent past that anyone could go to a bank and ask for a mortgage on a home without proving that they had the ability to pay back that loan. This of course led to skyrocketing home values. Homes were bought with zero or little down payment. Then when the bottom fell out people lost those homes. When they lost their homes the entire market collapsed which led to the rapid decrease in the value of all homes.

The difference is that the Turner gang has based the past year and a half of decisions on decreasing water rates. They have refused to tell the public how they plan to pay for anything.

That's why applying for a low interest loan is such a bad idea. The Turner gang wants to add debt while decreasing the revenue to pay back that debt. It's hard for me to understand how four elected officials think that this is a good idea.

That is also why I agreed with the arguments against the $192,000 study. There were only three aldermen and the mayor who repeatedly stated that it is a bad idea to go into debt without knowing how that debt will be repaid. Those who voted against the study were the only people who were acting responsibly.

Plus, if the study was so darn important why didn't Turner put in either of the past two budgets? If the money was in the budget for the study then there isn't an argument against the study. The money in the budget that Turner wants to use for the study is earmarked for maintenance and repairs. That is how the money should be used.
Chumbalone

Sacramento, CA

#126 Dec 10, 2012
Lockport wrote:
<quoted text>
You touch on two topics that need to be separated in order to be understood.
You are correct, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. You are also correct that Lockport doesn't have the money to do all the work. The confusion that I and a number of residents have is this. If Robinson must do this work immediately in order to qualify for a loan then how does Lockport pay back that loan? Paying back the loan really isn't an issue until you understand that the entire Turner gang campaign for next Spring is lowering the water rates. As I watched the meeting last week I just kept asking myself over and over how does Turner plan to pay back the loan? If the water revenue doesn't cover the payments for the loan then what is used as collateral? The mayor is right when he stated that our property taxes would have to go up in order to cover the loan.
Let's look at the issue another way. What some members of the council are proposing is no different than what led to the housing crisis. There was a time in the recent past that anyone could go to a bank and ask for a mortgage on a home without proving that they had the ability to pay back that loan. This of course led to skyrocketing home values. Homes were bought with zero or little down payment. Then when the bottom fell out people lost those homes. When they lost their homes the entire market collapsed which led to the rapid decrease in the value of all homes.
The difference is that the Turner gang has based the past year and a half of decisions on decreasing water rates. They have refused to tell the public how they plan to pay for anything.
That's why applying for a low interest loan is such a bad idea. The Turner gang wants to add debt while decreasing the revenue to pay back that debt. It's hard for me to understand how four elected officials think that this is a good idea.
That is also why I agreed with the arguments against the $192,000 study. There were only three aldermen and the mayor who repeatedly stated that it is a bad idea to go into debt without knowing how that debt will be repaid. Those who voted against the study were the only people who were acting responsibly.
Plus, if the study was so darn important why didn't Turner put in either of the past two budgets? If the money was in the budget for the study then there isn't an argument against the study. The money in the budget that Turner wants to use for the study is earmarked for maintenance and repairs. That is how the money should be used.
The water rate issue was for maintaining and making water users (residents and businesses) pay for that issue instead of dipping into the "general fund". Don't confuse water rates with the ENTIRE road, sewer, bad water mains, leaks, and sewage problems that exist in Lockport and have been PUT OFF FOR YEARS ON END. THis stuff WILL NOT FIX itself ! The studies have been done and a way to pay for a lot of this work is via low interest loan. HOW ELSE DO YOU PROPOSE ALL OF THIS WORK BE PAID FOR ???? Don't want any debt...don't do the work....very simple. That is what has been going on in this town for YEARS !! Waiting for the next council has been the mantra of this town forever !! I say enough is enough...no more majority...no more minority...no more Mayor vetos...it's time to either pony up...or let this town fall further into the hole it's already in !
Lockport

Lockport, IL

#127 Dec 10, 2012
I'm not saying that we put off any work. I am saying that this work must be paid for. Taking out a loan without the means to pay back the loan makes no sense.

Does work need to be done? You bet it does. But that work doesn't get done without cost.

Did you happen to read the 12/9/2012 Chicago Tribune? There is a large article that addresses the debt issue. The article makes a clear argument against adding debt to residents without the ability to pay back the debt.

When Turner finally allows Robinson to come to the podium with the cost of what they have learned with their multiple studies then I'll pay attention. I'll only be interested in two things. How much does it cost and where is the money going to come from? If the projects are to be paid for via a low interest loan then I need to know what is being used as collateral for that loan. If the plan is to get a loan and lower the water rates that would cover the cost of the loan then I'll dismiss the proposal as nonsense.

Once again, any proposal that recommends an increase in debt while promising to lower the very water rates that would pay back that debt is nonsense. Why? Because you and I are responsible to pay back that debt one way or another. It's going to be with increased water rates, increased property taxes, an increase in sales tax or an increase in some other fee.

How about this for a brilliant idea. Have Turner admit that he and his gang have been wrong all along. Go back to the 2010 recommendations. So far those are the only recommendations that actually do the work and pay for the work.
Chumbalone

Oak Park, IL

#128 Dec 11, 2012
Lockport wrote:
I'm not saying that we put off any work. I am saying that this work must be paid for. Taking out a loan without the means to pay back the loan makes no sense.
Does work need to be done? You bet it does. But that work doesn't get done without cost.
Did you happen to read the 12/9/2012 Chicago Tribune? There is a large article that addresses the debt issue. The article makes a clear argument against adding debt to residents without the ability to pay back the debt.
When Turner finally allows Robinson to come to the podium with the cost of what they have learned with their multiple studies then I'll pay attention. I'll only be interested in two things. How much does it cost and where is the money going to come from? If the projects are to be paid for via a low interest loan then I need to know what is being used as collateral for that loan. If the plan is to get a loan and lower the water rates that would cover the cost of the loan then I'll dismiss the proposal as nonsense.
Once again, any proposal that recommends an increase in debt while promising to lower the very water rates that would pay back that debt is nonsense. Why? Because you and I are responsible to pay back that debt one way or another. It's going to be with increased water rates, increased property taxes, an increase in sales tax or an increase in some other fee.
How about this for a brilliant idea. Have Turner admit that he and his gang have been wrong all along. Go back to the 2010 recommendations. So far those are the only recommendations that actually do the work and pay for the work.
Yes I did read the Trib article. Yes..towns have accumulated debt.But...what is the alternative for Lockport ? Doimg nothing...until we "save up" enough money to pay the MILLIONS required to fix the mess.Water rates are one issue...for the water system alone...the other is MUCH LARGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE. I am not a finance guru. We have a Finance Director and a City Administrator paid to assist the City in ways to determine funding methods. Low interest loans and bonding is the way MOST towns fund their capital improvement projects. It will take some balls to tell it like it is. So if Robinson says the price tag is 50 million....what do we do...ask for another study until certain members of this council get their way or because they "think" Robinson is bribing council members to get work?? Robinson does work all over the midwest...they don't need Lockport to make them a sucessful business. This Council needs to focus on getting things done...not political bickering and silly accusations. The 2010 plan was 3 years ago...like it or not....that ship has sailed. Lockport cannot afford to keep waiting. As I said....you either sign up to do the work and incur the bill to do it...or sit on your ass..argue like brats in a school yard...and kick the can down the road like previous councils have done ! If I have to help pay the tab...so be it. It's better than continuing to live a town crumbling before our eyes !!! I guess you are not willing to come on board....until the next "study" is done..or until 2010 comes back.
Lockport

Lockport, IL

#129 Dec 11, 2012
You ask what do we do? For starters the Turner gang has to rid themselves of their fantasy of lowering water rates while fixing the problems.

That is the whole argument in a nutshell. If there isn't a funding source for the loan then it is irresponsible to take out a loan.

Turner, Marynowski, Kelly and Van Dyke have created this mess. Had they not wasted the last two years trying to undo a perfectly good plan that accomplished exactly what you wanted then there isn't an issue.

No funding. No loan. Period.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#130 Dec 11, 2012
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> Yes I did read the Trib article. Yes..towns have accumulated debt.But...what is the alternative for Lockport ? Doimg nothing...until we "save up" enough money to pay the MILLIONS required to fix the mess.Water rates are one issue...for the water system alone...the other is MUCH LARGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE. I am not a finance guru. We have a Finance Director and a City Administrator paid to assist the City in ways to determine funding methods. Low interest loans and bonding is the way MOST towns fund their capital improvement projects. It will take some balls to tell it like it is. So if Robinson says the price tag is 50 million....what do we do...ask for another study until certain members of this council get their way or because they "think" Robinson is bribing council members to get work?? Robinson does work all over the midwest...they don't need Lockport to make them a sucessful business. This Council needs to focus on getting things done...not political bickering and silly accusations. The 2010 plan was 3 years ago...like it or not....that ship has sailed. Lockport cannot afford to keep waiting. As I said....you either sign up to do the work and incur the bill to do it...or sit on your ass..argue like brats in a school yard...and kick the can down the road like previous councils have done ! If I have to help pay the tab...so be it. It's better than continuing to live a town crumbling before our eyes !!! I guess you are not willing to come on board....until the next "study" is done..or until 2010 comes back.
So are saying the studies and the funding to pay for those repairs in both sewer and water, which is where the rates came from was a sham and we as customes should all get a refund back and have our rates back to 2010. Then when Robinson comes forward with all the rapairs they feel after million dollars worth of studies, then where is the funding. Remember he sewer /water fund was running in the negative and no agency will give a loan if the fund is running in the negative. The only reason there is a surplus now in the fund, which will allow a load possibly, is the fact this council voted to stop all projects that was supposed to be going on. Sure Robinson might choose a different street for water main, a different street for I&I, bottom line a plan was in place along with funding for that plan. Now we have nothing done a money in the bank. Of course Robinson still has not come forward with costs and how to pay for it. Oh yes thats right get a loan and pay interest on it. Thats good business.
Chumbalone

Sacramento, CA

#131 Dec 11, 2012
Lockport wrote:
You ask what do we do? For starters the Turner gang has to rid themselves of their fantasy of lowering water rates while fixing the problems.
That is the whole argument in a nutshell. If there isn't a funding source for the loan then it is irresponsible to take out a loan.
Turner, Marynowski, Kelly and Van Dyke have created this mess. Had they not wasted the last two years trying to undo a perfectly good plan that accomplished exactly what you wanted then there isn't an issue.
No funding. No loan. Period.
OK...you are right ! The next time I go out to buy my $300,000 home...I will wait until I have the entire 300 grand saved up...then I'll buy the house ! So it takes me 20 years to save the "funding" and by then my 300 grand house is now 500 grand !! Do you have any idea what the definition of a "LOAN" is ??? Boy I really missed something about what a loan is. Thanks for setting me straight. Are you sure you are not a CPA or a loan officer for a bank ???? Yep...you're right...it's all in a nutshell....with emphasis on "nut". Right again about those 4 people....how dare they foul up this crumbling town in just 2 years ! Imagine...just 2 years...and ALL this mess was created. How dare they !
Lockport

Lockport, IL

#132 Dec 11, 2012
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> OK...you are right ! The next time I go out to buy my $300,000 home...I will wait until I have the entire 300 grand saved up...then I'll buy the house ! So it takes me 20 years to save the "funding" and by then my 300 grand house is now 500 grand !! Do you have any idea what the definition of a "LOAN" is ??? Boy I really missed something about what a loan is. Thanks for setting me straight. Are you sure you are not a CPA or a loan officer for a bank ???? Yep...you're right...it's all in a nutshell....with emphasis on "nut". Right again about those 4 people....how dare they foul up this crumbling town in just 2 years ! Imagine...just 2 years...and ALL this mess was created. How dare they !
Are you a complete and utter fool or do you just play one on Topix?

Where did I write anything about saving all the money? I wrote that funding must be in place to repay the loan.

That is exactly what you and I did when we took out a mortgage on our homes. Or maybe you never applied for a mortgage, a car loan or any other type of loan. If you had then you would understand that you MUST SHOW THE ABILITY TO PAY BACK THE LOAN!!!

If you want to debate, I'll debate. But I wont' debate with a fool.
Lockport Local

Lockport, IL

#133 Dec 11, 2012
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> Right again about those 4 people....how dare they foul up this crumbling town in just 2 years ! Imagine...just 2 years...and ALL this mess was created. How dare they !
"Chum" they did it in 18 months or less. Wait for the full 2 years to see how much damage the "Slimys" have done. And you want to re-elect this bunch with Turner as mayor?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#134 Dec 11, 2012
Lockport wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a complete and utter fool or do you just play one on Topix?
Where did I write anything about saving all the money? I wrote that funding must be in place to repay the loan.
That is exactly what you and I did when we took out a mortgage on our homes. Or maybe you never applied for a mortgage, a car loan or any other type of loan. If you had then you would understand that you MUST SHOW THE ABILITY TO PAY BACK THE LOAN!!!
If you want to debate, I'll debate. But I wont' debate with a fool.
You are wasting your typing efforts with Chumbalone. Notice how he only felt compelled to reply your idea. He had the time, but always fails to reply to those who also put facts and common sense out there for review. He knows that if had to debate in person, say during a public meeting, Chumbalone would not stand a chance. Of course, junst like the HEAD COWARD at the last meeting, throws out misc infomration to try and deflect the real issues at hand. ANd when the HEAD COWARD was challanged by Pete, for exact details, and why the HEAD COWARD doesn't file all his paperwork, all the HEAD COWARD could do was babble. Just like Chumbalone, just bables when facts are presented, or asked to explain views.
The crook

Lockport, IL

#135 Dec 11, 2012
thoughts or ideas wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wasting your typing efforts with Chumbalone. Notice how he only felt compelled to reply your idea. He had the time, but always fails to reply to those who also put facts and common sense out there for review. He knows that if had to debate in person, say during a public meeting, Chumbalone would not stand a chance. Of course, junst like the HEAD COWARD at the last meeting, throws out misc infomration to try and deflect the real issues at hand. ANd when the HEAD COWARD was challanged by Pete, for exact details, and why the HEAD COWARD doesn't file all his paperwork, all the HEAD COWARD could do was babble. Just like Chumbalone, just bables when facts are presented, or asked to explain views.
He is one and the same! Chumbalone...look back at his posts, way back. He is one and the same person as you noted!
CMON

Chicago, IL

#136 Dec 11, 2012
Lockport wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a complete and utter fool or do you just play one on Topix?
Where did I write anything about saving all the money? I wrote that funding must be in place to repay the loan.
That is exactly what you and I did when we took out a mortgage on our homes. Or maybe you never applied for a mortgage, a car loan or any other type of loan. If you had then you would understand that you MUST SHOW THE ABILITY TO PAY BACK THE LOAN!!!
If you want to debate, I'll debate. But I wont' debate with a fool.
I thought it was pretty clearly stated and I agree. By all means take the loan if you have funding set aside to pay it back. It's a shame it's taken this long to get started. Before Turner changed the budget, after taking office, there was a plan in place to fix and fund many of the issues. He thinks he can dirty all the facts up by throwing the roads in the same conversation.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137 Dec 11, 2012
CMON wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought it was pretty clearly stated and I agree. By all means take the loan if you have funding set aside to pay it back. It's a shame it's taken this long to get started. Before Turner changed the budget, after taking office, there was a plan in place to fix and fund many of the issues. He thinks he can dirty all the facts up by throwing the roads in the same conversation.
Even that there was a plan in place, remember the taxpayers voted a tax increase for the roads, except the HEAD COWARD and gang, thought it best to take out a loan and still not repair all the roads. All we did is pay more interest, rather than pay as you go as the voters decided on doing. Either HEAD COWARD or Robinson must be heading up the bank collecting interest somehow, otherwise why always go for a loan. Have a good nite all, lets see how Chumbalone responds later. I am sure will be a babble or two. Just like the when the HEAD COWARD speaks.
Chumbalone

Sacramento, CA

#138 Dec 12, 2012
Lockport wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a complete and utter fool or do you just play one on Topix?
Where did I write anything about saving all the money? I wrote that funding must be in place to repay the loan.
That is exactly what you and I did when we took out a mortgage on our homes. Or maybe you never applied for a mortgage, a car loan or any other type of loan. If you had then you would understand that you MUST SHOW THE ABILITY TO PAY BACK THE LOAN!!!
If you want to debate, I'll debate. But I wont' debate with a fool.
Don't care if you think I'm a fool. The joke is not on me...but on this town. No one is debating that a loan must be paid back. But if you have an opportunity to, AT THE VERY LEAST, apply for low interest loan...which the city may not get...why would you not do so ? How else will this town ever get started on the work ?? I happen to agree with applying for the loan....you do not. I want the work to get started...you seem to want to wait until an unnamed funding source is available. We have a sales tax...we have MFT funds...we have a utility tax...we have property taxes collected. Now where will Lockport get the "funding" for all this work...to at least begin...not all of the work...but to get started on the most serious issues ??? Since I am a fool....you can set me and everyone else straight with YOUR "expertise". I'm responding to you...rather than the other rabble on this forum.
Super 77

Lemont, IL

#139 Dec 12, 2012
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> ...you seem to want to wait until an unnamed funding source is available.
It's not that we are waiting for an unnamed funding source. We have the source - the last council passed the rate increase and the sales tax increase to pay for these projects.

The problem is Turner wants to take out the loan but then RESCIND the funding source. That has been his mantra (along with Dick, Tom, and Denise) for two years. He can't run on "work needs to be done, let's take out a loan" AND "let's kill the funding source to repay the loan."
Lockport

Lockport, IL

#140 Dec 12, 2012
Super 77 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not that we are waiting for an unnamed funding source. We have the source - the last council passed the rate increase and the sales tax increase to pay for these projects.
The problem is Turner wants to take out the loan but then RESCIND the funding source. That has been his mantra (along with Dick, Tom, and Denise) for two years. He can't run on "work needs to be done, let's take out a loan" AND "let's kill the funding source to repay the loan."
Amen.
Chumbalone

Sycamore, IL

#141 Dec 12, 2012
Super 77 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not that we are waiting for an unnamed funding source. We have the source - the last council passed the rate increase and the sales tax increase to pay for these projects.
The problem is Turner wants to take out the loan but then RESCIND the funding source. That has been his mantra (along with Dick, Tom, and Denise) for two years. He can't run on "work needs to be done, let's take out a loan" AND "let's kill the funding source to repay the loan."
Are you talking about the water rate increases he wanted to stop ?? That has nothing to do with roads, sewer leaks...new sewers... new hydrants...etc. Water rates were for the water system. That's what Schlonegar pushed the water rate increases for...to stop using general fund money to keep propping up the water system. Cap projects are a different story altogther. Got to get the money somewhere...why not a low int loan...at least to get some money to get out of this silly rut this town is in.
Lockport

Lockport, IL

#142 Dec 12, 2012
Chumbalone wrote:
<quoted text> Are you talking about the water rate increases he wanted to stop ?? That has nothing to do with roads, sewer leaks...new sewers... new hydrants...etc. Water rates were for the water system. That's what Schlonegar pushed the water rate increases for...to stop using general fund money to keep propping up the water system. Cap projects are a different story altogther. Got to get the money somewhere...why not a low int loan...at least to get some money to get out of this silly rut this town is in.
You understand what's going on in Lockport as well as that airhead Marynowski.
Chumbalone

Sacramento, CA

#143 Dec 12, 2012
Lockport wrote:
<quoted text>
You understand what's going on in Lockport as well as that airhead Marynowski.
Nobody asked you. At least she has a head. Yours is too far up your own ass for anyone to see it .

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Shorewood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pagoda house closing 21 hr Close family friend 28
Council stung by its boner Thu Jethro 5
fairmont school board's failing leadership (May '16) Wed Little reggie 123
Mailman who delivers to downtown businesses? (Oct '16) Apr 24 Terrimom 2
RIP Tim Murphy Apr 24 G Simmons 2
News Coal City puts home rule on the ballot Apr 5 Failures 13
Coffee and Gelato at 52/59 Jan '17 Gunny 1

Shorewood Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Shorewood Mortgages