This blog is maintained for the sole purpose of allowing the people of Peru and those interested in the cities of the Illinois Valley to express their views.
“It doesn’t take a majority to win, just a tireless minority that will keep starting brush fires in the mind and hearts of their fellow men.” Samuel Adams
Peru Town Forum I'm speechless! I do know that lady Kathi. Why in the hell would any city official or male confront a female, especially on like this lady. She is no kid she's an adult who I and many others have great respect for. I read that article she is referring to and didn't know who she was referencing. Dave Waldorf needs to step down and this needs to be published in the news paper and radio. He can't get away with that. I was speechless but the more I write the more pissed I'm getting. If some guy (poor title for a man) confronted my mother, sister or wife I would be thrown in jail. He needs to be tossed from public service immediately!
During a weekend gathering of family friends and neighbors, this blog came up as a topic of discussion. Seems we are all worried about what topic you and your friends will be discussing next week? See, we all think the two Dave's will be reelected, and Rodney is going to be close, as we don't think most of his supporters live in his ward, let alone Peru. We all visit this site weekly at the least as a source of humor. So we are concerned that if the vote goes the way we see it, there will be nothing left to blog about! May I suggest a couple of topics? term limits, alderman at large, adventure drive? No I got it, Pickle ball. I noticed that there is a house for rent next to the court at Sunset Park. Perhaps one of your friends could rent the house and complain about the noise. Since this is the only topic this site has had any hand in getting changed in Peru, maybe take it up again. Get pickle ball shipped off to say Spring Valley? Why should Peru have all the fun, lets share it with our neighbors. Thank you for this forum to try out my jokes, Lois. Freido
I heard there was a big political meeting this weekend, the purpose of which was to divvy up post election Peru. They can't do another redistricting until 2020, so that is off the table for now. Also, The Boss desperately wants to move on to higher office, so there is bond to be some maneuvering going on. How will the committees be structured after the election was a hot topic. As well as the new Administrator as soon as the rubber stamp committee gets done.
If there was a political meeting this weekend, and you have proof 8:52, it should be reported to the Attorney General as it would have been illegal. It would have violated the Open Meetings Act as no agenda was posted 48 hours in advance. Most of this council thinks they are above the law (example: deliberate sign violations), they concentrate too much of their time and energy fighting amongst themselves, and most importantly they don't know how to connect and communicate with their constituents.
Freido. We voted for our neighbor Bob Borostowsli during Ald. Perez's first run because we wanted someone in there who don't take no crap from mayor scott harl and gets things done. We think alderman perez filled those shoes well. We need someone stirring things up at city hall and not everyone just going along. We will be voting for perez next week. Perez gained three supporters from our address and I know even more he's gained around the corner who feel the same way. Peru don't need another yes person.
10:46 If you call Tom Payton a yes man, you have never talked to him or heard his ideas. He is not a yes man, and contrary to what you read on this blog, he is in no way Harl's buddy! Get a clue Peru!
Waldorf just can't stop trying to silence people by threats of intimidation. He's making an ass of himself byssinosis stupid statements about suing people for speaking out. Mr.Waldorf I know you're reading this. You're a coward. Please do some real homework about slander and freedom of speech and while you're at it look up some other blog sites about things said about other public officials. You are a public official open for public scrutiny. Slander and Libel are false damaging comments made in public to damage reputation. What has been put out in public is factual statements you need to prove they are not true. YOU CAN'T!
Something like this would be a good case of slander- Mr. Trustee Davis stole money from the clerks desk then took his cat and boyfriend to the beach and his wife caught them. Now- that would be a good case. So Alderman Dave Waldorf stop with your intimidation.
I will be lucky if this comment is posted. If in fact, a woman was intimidated or harassed, why didn't she file a police report. Sounds like a a few people are taking advantage of her to stir the pot with no credible proof. Thats all they have? Poor ladies name is drug in the mud now. Nice friends.
Why not call the police. I think it is very wrong to post this without some solid proof. Maybe I can say somebody on this blog harrased me. I am not sayibng this lady is wrong or a wacko but this situation true or false does not belong here and should be taken down. If it is a legal matter it will be in the NT. I would think litigation of slander could be a possibility or at least looked into.
Again posts like this make the ENTIRE AREA LOOK BAD AND DETERS PEOPLE OR A BUSINESS FROM COMING HERE. IF YOU WOULD READ THIS WOULD YOU MOVE HERE? LET THE COPS HANDLE IT
To make the area look good, you got to be good. Right now, I would not invest a dime in any kind of development in Peru. There seems to be a mentality within the management of the city that the residents are a secondary concern and that all efforts are squarely centered on 1) Increasing Revenue and 2) Enriching local cronies and 3) Providing government employment.
It is truly what our new governor referred to as a Government designed and operated in a to support and perpetuate itself. Until that changes, Peru is NOT a good investment.
If you people think this lady is making up a story against alderman Waldorf then why isn't he pursuing legal action against her? Wouldn't he have that right if her statements are made up as some of you seem to indicate. Why in the world would she or anyone make up something like that? You people are ridiculous!!
It's a good thing you are not in business 10:08 because you would fail with your reasons for not locating here. Other businesses are investing in Peru at many times the clip of anywhere else in the Illinois Valley and there is good reason for that. Peru is an excellent investment and there are many business people that will tell you that.
Despite your conspiracy theories "local cronies" are not getting rich. There are always local business tie ins with local government, but ours happen to be much bigger than just local (since I assume you are once again beating the TEST and Chamlin drum). ALL local governments want to increase local revenue and for good reason.
10:33, why would Waldorf pursue any legal action, either herself or People on the blog are saying he really ripped into her, which I don't agree, I'm sure he asked about her problems with him, which she should have expected, she put it out there now don't run from it and this forum is using it to discredit a sitting alderman, because they are worrying about their candidate getting beat.
I had assumed that only Dave W. and the lady were present during this event and now you are telling me you were there also and witnessed it so why did you not come forward and tell us you were with Ald. W.? I have personally experienced his temper. You need to come forward and tell us what exactly took place, not what you think took place.
Lets assume that "W" acted as he usually does when asked a question or is told something he does not agree with. In that situation he usually acts a bit agitated because he does not like to hear other opinions. In other words, he is quite possibly just an angry old man that should be humored and tolerated, but not put in any position of responsibility.
10:33 ridiculous?? Think about what you are saying. He is running for office and talks to the person who wrote a letter to the editor. She accuses him of some things. It's all hearsay. So he is supposed to file CHARGES against her and if he doesn't then he must by lying? Are you kidding me?
Is that what you do when someone talks about you? You take legal action? And if you don't you are a liar? Unbelievable!
And you ask why would anyone make this up? Are you kidding me? I've read more false things in this space about Dave Waldorf WHICH IS FALSE! People have said complete lies on here about Dave and it is sickening.
Only selected comments are posted. It's so obvious that the plan is here and who is involved. Sick sick sick.
3:44, I'll tell you what you don't do. You don't find that person walking down the street and suddenly stop your car in front of that person. You don't jump out of your car, leaving the engine running and the door open. You don't advance toward that person at a quick pace with an angry demeanor. That is what you don't do.
4:04 so you are saying that is what Mr. Waldorf did? He "advanced toward that person at a quick pace with an angry demeanor"? Did he yell? Did he scream? Did he swear at her?
I don't know exactly what happened. If that is it, it may not be classy and it may not be the smartest political move but it does not deserve the reaction it is getting.
What I DO know is that so much of what is being said is wrong! Nothing on this blog is about right and wrong. It is about advancing very specific candidates. So why not just own that? Why not just come out and say it?
The things that are being said about people are just so wrong. It saddens me to see this far more than someone having signs that are too big or someone who can act like a jerk. How can people talk that way about someone and then act much worse here?
3:44 Did you witness the conversation between alderman Waldorf and the lady? Why in the world would she open herself up for criticism if the event did not happen? Did she name the alderman in the paper? Then why are you people protecting alderman Waldorf? How did you come to the conclusion that it was him that she encountered?
If this had been a man vs a man, your reasoning could apply but this was a man vs a female and that is why we have sexual harrassment laws on the book. When someone comes toward you and speaking in a loud voice and the female becomes intiminated and experiencs fear as she did, then it becomes a violation not only of common sense but actually of the law. The alderman did not express good judgment once again.
The lady should have immediately called the police, whether she knew him or not, no one deserves that treatment for expressing their opinion in the newspaper. Do these aldermen think they are in Chicago and practicing that style of government? Treat people with respect, whether you agree with them or not, being nice goes a long way.
She did not name anybody in her article. He should never have approached her. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it. He didn't need to confront her.
Sexual harassment? What the heck? Have you lost your mind? This isn't even in the ballpark of sexual harassment! Not even close. Just because it is a male and a female does NOT mean sexual harassment. You just lost your case. This is just nuts.
He didn't need to confront her and she didn't need to write the article. At least he didn't do anything behind her back and was up front about it. Would you have liked him to call the newspaper to tell them to be there when he spoke to her?
Yes, 7:28, that was the time alderman Waldorf should have opened up and addressed a citizen. Instead of responding to a legitimate question regarding a project he was in charge of, he choose to respond and approach a "woman" who voiced her opinion in an open forum. I personally find that behavior unacceptable.
First of all, for all of you in the stone ages, man or woman it doesn't matter. She addressed the issue in an open forum and put her name on it, so he had every right to talk to her. I respect that he did. What that individual said is still hearsay. There's always two sides to a story, and in my opinion it was a private conversation between two people.
It could've stopped there, but then she decided to take it to another level. Or I should say the people pulling the strings for the campaigns did.bAs far as the goofy "radio" interview that is done by a man who is a total prop for very specific candidates, let's be serious. There's a whole string of people tied together campaigning for a very specific groups working together, and of the rest of you can't see that then I feel sorry for you.
Have you noticed the conspiracies and comments about people campaigning together and how unethical that is has gone away? That's because there are two groups campaigning together and everyone who knows anything completely understand this.
Six more days and this is all over. Thank heavens!
You are wrong, the lady had the right to address her concerns publicly in the news print. The alderman had no right to confront her on her property, not one foot on private property or she could and should have called the PD. The alderman does have the right to write an OpenForum letter explaining his position. She did it in a proper and legal manner and actually never mentioned his name so it is evident the alderman knew who she was talking about and also knew he was in the wrong with his signs and also was in the wrong with his verbal attack of the individual on her private property.
The person who began all of this controversy is the alderman, Ald. W. who begain this when he knowingly put up signs in violation of the ordinance he voted for and then tried to weasel out of it be attacking the lady verbally on her property. Alderman Waldorf has no legal ground to stand on with this one.
The fact that she didn't say who it was and yet he still addressed it gives him that much more credibility. This is ridiculous. Just like a week or two ago when you were saying that it was "unethical" to have candidates support each other and yet you do not address that the opposition candidates are openly supporting each other. Why is that?
Once again no discussion of the real issues while your blog perpetuates horrible things being said about people that are not true. Even implying sexual harassment. Sick and absolutely ridiculous but when the incumbents are re-elected you can continue to say how stupid the Peru voters are for not supporting your candidates. Of course it is quite clear that NO candidates want to be affiliated with the blog but the smart voters know.
Whoever you and the blog supports loses. It's a shame. You just simply cannot turn this into a tool to do some good.
You are entitled to your opinion as wrong as it is.
You have not seen one post by me endorsing any candidate running in this election so quit your mindless wandering. I am entitled to my personal opinions.
2 candiates running for office have blatantly disobeyed the ordinances they established and i will be posting the foia'd emails so residents can see for themselves.
As to winners and losers, the people will need to make that choice and everyone will have to live with that decision because that is how elections are managed in the state of Il and the U.S.
I will continue to post the events I feel are important for the voters to know.
From your posting, I can see you would not recognize good when it confronts you but remain very biased and nasty and if you are an elected person, shame on you for at least not signing your name. If people in Peru mistake wrong for right in the Waldorf scenerio, so be it.
1:35 From what I understand, Perez's sign was taken care of AS SOON AS HE WAS NOTIFIED. What’s wrong with him having a sign up 100 days ? It’s legal to have it up for as long as he wants. Might that be 100 days or 200 days.
1:35 The time frame for signs being posted is not a legal or illegal issue. Get that thru your head. And, yes alderman Perez had a sign that was too big, someone complained, he was told by Mr. King to remove it and he immediately did so (I believe this was around March 16th). Immediately after this incident Mr. Potthoff put up 1 of his 3 oversized signs in the same location that alderman Perez was told to remove his. Someone complained and Mr. King sent Mr. Potthoff an email asking him what his "thoughts" were. As you can see from the info posted it took some encouragement and several emails before Mr. Potthoff came into compliance with the very ordinance he helped to orchestrate. Can you give me a reasonable explanation as to why a fully informed, senior alderman would deliberately violate a city ordinance?
Why would a city employee who has a job description as code enforcer ask an alderman for "his thoughts?" Should not he know his job, and had already asked one alderman to remove his sign before his email was sent to another alderman "for thoughts?" A tangible time line there. Nothing like beating around the bush.
45 comments:
Peru Town Forum I'm speechless! I do know that lady Kathi. Why in the hell would any city official or male confront a female, especially on like this lady. She is no kid she's an adult who I and many others have great respect for. I read that article she is referring to and didn't know who she was referencing. Dave Waldorf needs to step down and this needs to be published in the news paper and radio. He can't get away with that. I was speechless but the more I write the more pissed I'm getting. If some guy (poor title for a man) confronted my mother, sister or wife I would be thrown in jail.
He needs to be tossed from public service immediately!
Hear say Unless u have
Pics or a vid of this it shouldnt of been posted Anyone can say anything
During a weekend gathering of family friends and neighbors, this blog came up as a topic of discussion.
Seems we are all worried about what topic you and your friends will be discussing next week?
See, we all think the two Dave's will be reelected, and Rodney is going to be close, as we don't think most of his supporters live in his ward, let alone Peru.
We all visit this site weekly at the least as a source of humor.
So we are concerned that if the vote goes the way we see it, there will be nothing left to blog about!
May I suggest a couple of topics?
term limits, alderman at large, adventure drive?
No I got it, Pickle ball. I noticed that there is a house for rent next to the court at Sunset Park. Perhaps one of your friends could rent the house and complain about the noise. Since this is the only topic this site has had any hand in getting changed in Peru, maybe take it up again. Get pickle ball shipped off to say Spring Valley? Why should Peru have all the fun, lets share it with our neighbors.
Thank you for this forum to try out my jokes, Lois.
Freido
I heard there was a big political meeting this weekend, the purpose of which was to divvy up post election Peru. They can't do another redistricting until 2020, so that is off the table for now. Also, The Boss desperately wants to move on to higher office, so there is bond to be some maneuvering going on. How will the committees be structured after the election was a hot topic. As well as the new Administrator as soon as the rubber stamp committee gets done.
For your info 5;59 pickleball is not played at Sunset Park. Get your facts straight.
If there was a political meeting this weekend, and you have proof 8:52, it should be reported to the Attorney General as it would have been illegal. It would have violated the Open Meetings Act as no agenda was posted 48 hours in advance. Most of this council thinks they are above the law (example: deliberate sign violations), they concentrate too much of their time and energy fighting amongst themselves, and most importantly they don't know how to connect and communicate with their constituents.
8:56
No sense of humor?
I think it was funny.
Freido
For your information 8:56, you can play Pickleball in a parking lot or on the street if you want. Please fact check before you post.
The pickle ball delema was a joke! It showed how arrogant the council gets when you don't agree with them.
Fact! Fact! I was at the council meeting. I was not there for pickleball. I couldn't believe what I saw and heard.
Freido. We voted for our neighbor Bob Borostowsli during Ald. Perez's first run because we wanted someone in there who don't take no crap from mayor scott harl and gets things done. We think alderman perez filled those shoes well. We need someone stirring things up at city hall and not everyone just going along. We will be voting for perez next week. Perez gained three supporters from our address and I know even more he's gained around the corner who feel the same way. Peru don't need another yes person.
10:46
If you call Tom Payton a yes man, you have never talked to him or heard his ideas. He is not a yes man, and contrary to what you read on this blog, he is in no way Harl's buddy!
Get a clue Peru!
Waldorf just can't stop trying to silence people by threats of intimidation. He's making an ass of himself byssinosis stupid statements about suing people for speaking out.
Mr.Waldorf I know you're reading this. You're a coward. Please do some real homework about slander and freedom of speech and while you're at it look up some other blog sites about things said about other public officials. You are a public official open for public scrutiny. Slander and Libel are false damaging comments made in public to damage reputation. What has been put out in public is factual statements you need to prove they are not true. YOU CAN'T!
Something like this would be a good case of slander- Mr. Trustee Davis stole money from the clerks desk then took his cat and boyfriend to the beach and his wife caught them.
Now- that would be a good case.
So Alderman Dave Waldorf stop with your intimidation.
I will be lucky if this comment is posted. If in fact, a woman was intimidated or harassed, why didn't she file a police report. Sounds like a a few people are taking advantage of her to stir the pot with no credible proof. Thats all they have? Poor ladies name is drug in the mud now. Nice friends.
Why not call the police. I think it is very wrong to post this without some solid proof. Maybe I can say somebody on this blog harrased me. I am not sayibng this lady is wrong or a wacko but this situation true or false does not belong here and should be taken down. If it is a legal matter it will be in the NT. I would think litigation of slander could be a possibility or at least looked into.
Again posts like this make the ENTIRE AREA LOOK BAD AND DETERS PEOPLE OR A BUSINESS FROM COMING HERE. IF YOU WOULD READ THIS WOULD YOU MOVE HERE? LET THE COPS HANDLE IT
To make the area look good, you got to be good.
Right now, I would not invest a dime in any kind of development in Peru. There seems to be a mentality within the management of the city that the residents are a secondary concern and that all efforts are squarely centered on 1) Increasing Revenue and 2) Enriching local cronies and 3) Providing government employment.
It is truly what our new governor referred to as a Government designed and operated in a to support and perpetuate itself. Until that changes, Peru is NOT a good investment.
If you people think this lady is making up a story against alderman Waldorf then why isn't he pursuing legal action against her? Wouldn't he have that right if her statements are made up as some of you seem to indicate. Why in the world would she or anyone make up something like that? You people are ridiculous!!
It's a good thing you are not in business 10:08 because you would fail with your reasons for not locating here. Other businesses are investing in Peru at many times the clip of anywhere else in the Illinois Valley and there is good reason for that. Peru is an excellent investment and there are many business people that will tell you that.
Despite your conspiracy theories "local cronies" are not getting rich. There are always local business tie ins with local government, but ours happen to be much bigger than just local (since I assume you are once again beating the TEST and Chamlin drum). ALL local governments want to increase local revenue and for good reason.
10:33, why would Waldorf pursue any legal action, either herself or People on the blog are saying he really ripped into her, which I don't agree, I'm sure he asked about her problems with him, which she should have expected, she put it out there now don't run from it and this forum is using it to discredit a sitting alderman, because they are worrying about their candidate getting beat.
11:45 A.M.
I had assumed that only Dave W. and the lady were present during this event and now you are telling me you were there also and witnessed it so why did you not come forward and tell us you were with Ald. W.? I have personally experienced his temper. You need to come forward and tell us what exactly took place, not what you think took place.
I am sure you will hear many other outlandish stories about those that you wish to remove from office.
Lets assume that "W" acted as he usually does when asked a question or is told something he does not agree with. In that situation he usually acts a bit agitated because he does not like to hear other opinions. In other words, he is quite possibly just an angry old man that should be humored and tolerated, but not put in any position of responsibility.
10:33 ridiculous?? Think about what you are saying. He is running for office and talks to the person who wrote a letter to the editor. She accuses him of some things. It's all hearsay. So he is supposed to file CHARGES against her and if he doesn't then he must by lying? Are you kidding me?
Is that what you do when someone talks about you? You take legal action? And if you don't you are a liar? Unbelievable!
And you ask why would anyone make this up? Are you kidding me? I've read more false things in this space about Dave Waldorf WHICH IS FALSE! People have said complete lies on here about Dave and it is sickening.
Only selected comments are posted. It's so obvious that the plan is here and who is involved. Sick sick sick.
3:44, I'll tell you what you don't do. You don't find that person walking down the street and suddenly stop your car in front of that person. You don't jump out of your car, leaving the engine running and the door open. You don't advance toward that person at a quick pace with an angry demeanor. That is what you don't do.
4:04 so you are saying that is what Mr. Waldorf did? He "advanced toward that person at a quick pace with an angry demeanor"? Did he yell? Did he scream? Did he swear at her?
I don't know exactly what happened. If that is it, it may not be classy and it may not be the smartest political move but it does not deserve the reaction it is getting.
What I DO know is that so much of what is being said is wrong! Nothing on this blog is about right and wrong. It is about advancing very specific candidates. So why not just own that? Why not just come out and say it?
The things that are being said about people are just so wrong. It saddens me to see this far more than someone having signs that are too big or someone who can act like a jerk. How can people talk that way about someone and then act much worse here?
It's very sad.
4:04 give me the facts or are you making things up from hearsay.
3:44 Did you witness the conversation between alderman Waldorf and the lady? Why in the world would she open herself up for criticism if the event did not happen? Did she name the alderman in the paper? Then why are you people protecting alderman Waldorf? How did you come to the conclusion that it was him that she encountered?
6:48 PM
If this had been a man vs a man, your reasoning could apply but this was a man vs a female and that is why we have sexual harrassment laws on the book. When someone comes toward you and speaking in a loud voice and the female becomes intiminated and experiencs fear as she did, then it becomes a violation not only of common sense but actually of the law. The alderman did not express good judgment once again.
Loved the open forum tonight so true...waldorf missed huge opportunity to address during public comment
His silence speaks volumes to me and that he need lucksus to defend him..come on
The lady should have immediately called the police, whether she knew him or not, no one deserves that treatment for expressing their opinion in the newspaper. Do these aldermen think they are in Chicago and practicing that style of government? Treat people with respect, whether you agree with them or not, being nice goes a long way.
She did not name anybody in her article. He should never have approached her. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it. He didn't need to confront her.
Sexual harassment? What the heck? Have you lost your mind? This isn't even in the ballpark of sexual harassment! Not even close. Just because it is a male and a female does NOT mean sexual harassment. You just lost your case. This is just nuts.
6:49 - it in not hearsay. It is from the first person account of the person involved. An interview was recorded and made available for the public.
The City would be much better off without the services of Mr. "W".
He didn't need to confront her and she didn't need to write the article. At least he didn't do anything behind her back and was up front about it. Would you have liked him to call the newspaper to tell them to be there when he spoke to her?
Yes, 7:28, that was the time alderman Waldorf should have opened up and addressed a citizen. Instead of responding to a legitimate question regarding a project he was in charge of, he choose to respond and approach a "woman" who voiced her opinion in an open forum. I personally find that behavior unacceptable.
First of all, for all of you in the stone ages, man or woman it doesn't matter. She addressed the issue in an open forum and put her name on it, so he had every right to talk to her. I respect that he did. What that individual said is still hearsay. There's always two sides to a story, and in my opinion it was a private conversation between two people.
It could've stopped there, but then she decided to take it to another level. Or I should say the people pulling the strings for the campaigns did.bAs far as the goofy "radio" interview that is done by a man who is a total prop for very specific candidates, let's be serious. There's a whole string of people tied together campaigning for a very specific groups working together, and of the rest of you can't see that then I feel sorry for you.
Have you noticed the conspiracies and comments about people campaigning together and how unethical that is has gone away? That's because there are two groups campaigning together and everyone who knows anything completely understand this.
Six more days and this is all over. Thank heavens!
11:48 AM
You are wrong, the lady had the right to address her concerns publicly in the news print. The alderman had no right to confront her on her property, not one foot on private property or she could and should have called the PD.
The alderman does have the right to write an OpenForum letter explaining his position.
She did it in a proper and legal manner and actually never mentioned his name so it is evident the alderman knew who she was talking about and also knew he was in the wrong with his signs and also was in the wrong with his verbal attack of the individual on her private property.
The person who began all of this controversy is the alderman, Ald. W. who begain this when he knowingly put up signs in violation of the ordinance he voted for and then tried to weasel out of it be attacking the lady verbally on her property.
Alderman Waldorf has no legal ground to stand on with this one.
He had no right to address her. She didn't name any names.
The fact that she didn't say who it was and yet he still addressed it gives him that much more credibility. This is ridiculous. Just like a week or two ago when you were saying that it was "unethical" to have candidates support each other and yet you do not address that the opposition candidates are openly supporting each other. Why is that?
Once again no discussion of the real issues while your blog perpetuates horrible things being said about people that are not true. Even implying sexual harassment. Sick and absolutely ridiculous but when the incumbents are re-elected you can continue to say how stupid the Peru voters are for not supporting your candidates. Of course it is quite clear that NO candidates want to be affiliated with the blog but the smart voters know.
Whoever you and the blog supports loses. It's a shame. You just simply cannot turn this into a tool to do some good.
2:01 PM
You are entitled to your opinion as wrong as it is.
You have not seen one post by me endorsing any candidate running in this election so quit your mindless wandering. I am entitled to my personal opinions.
2 candiates running for office have blatantly disobeyed the ordinances they established and i will be posting the foia'd emails so residents can see for themselves.
As to winners and losers, the people will need to make that choice and everyone will have to live with that decision because that is how elections are managed in the state of Il and the U.S.
I will continue to post the events I feel are important for the voters to know.
From your posting, I can see you would not recognize good when it confronts you but remain very biased and nasty and if you are an elected person, shame on you for at least not signing your name. If people in Peru mistake wrong for right in the Waldorf scenerio, so be it.
The best way to change is get out and vote your mind,
If you don't vote you have no right to complain,
That would be three candidates that violated the ordinance. Perez signs were too large and posted up 100 days prior to the election. Let us be fair!
How do you know that Waldorf was hostile?
1:35 From what I understand, Perez's sign was taken care of AS SOON AS HE WAS NOTIFIED. What’s wrong with him having a sign up 100 days ? It’s legal to have it up for as long as he wants. Might that be 100 days or 200 days.
1:35 The time frame for signs being posted is not a legal or illegal issue. Get that thru your head. And, yes alderman Perez had a sign that was too big, someone complained, he was told by Mr. King to remove it and he immediately did so (I believe this was around March 16th). Immediately after this incident Mr. Potthoff put up 1 of his 3 oversized signs in the same location that alderman Perez was told to remove his. Someone complained and Mr. King sent Mr. Potthoff an email asking him what his "thoughts" were. As you can see from the info posted it took some encouragement and several emails before Mr. Potthoff came into compliance with the very ordinance he helped to orchestrate. Can you give me a reasonable explanation as to why a fully informed, senior alderman would deliberately violate a city ordinance?
Why would a city employee who has a job description as code enforcer ask an alderman for "his thoughts?" Should not he know his job, and had already asked one alderman to remove his sign before his email was sent to another alderman "for thoughts?" A tangible time line there. Nothing like beating around the bush.
1:16 Nothing like "selective" enforcement.
Post a Comment