Upon opening the forum, Ald. Ankiewicz immediately made the announcement that the Recreation Commission had met the night before and decided that everything would remain on Water Street. He then began speaking from numerous papers he had in front of him that turned out to be more than anyone there was one bit interested. He immediately brought up the CSO and how much the city benefits from their Water Street beer garden as in Christmas Decorations (what year were they last replaced?). I honestly believe that the CSO aldermen and former Alderman are only speaking for themselves and as someone wrote on the blog some time ago, they do not speak for the entire CSO organization but they sure know how to give it a bad name. I honestly wish that some of the younger and less dominant members would stand up against them and present themselves to the public because the ones I have mentioned are giving the organization a very bad name.
Public opinion was not encouraged and those that spoke were always put down. My apologies to the representative from the Ottawa fund raising organization and to the pyro tech gentleman who were present.
I also believe that members of the CSO who are also council members need to abstain from voting on any event of which they will be a part of because they do have a conflict of interest, maybe not financially but definitely a self interest.
It turns out that the Ankiewicz announcement was premature and the Recreation Commission has discussed but not voted and will take up the matter at a later date.
25 comments:
All postings from the previous blog except the 1st posting belong in this blog.
Some individuals should acknowlege that they are not at war with the CSO. You are wanting elected city officials to abstain from voting on important issues because they are members of the CSO and have a self interest which is in your estimation a conflict of interest. Be careful, you'll need a council of several dozen to have a vote by your standards. Everyone has self interests which they at times have to put aside to vote fairly.
For example: Would you stop Alderman Perez from voting on all issues with the fire department when the Mayor also has appointed him to the Public Health and Safety Committee?
For example: Would you stop Alderwoman Mayszak from voting on all issues pertaining to the swimming pool because she is on a Pool Fundraising Committee and also on the Building Grounds and Recreation Committee?
The idea is not to give birth to new problems but to wrap up old ones with final conclusions and positive results.
1:02PM
I came to that conclusion last night as I watched the performance exhibited by the members I saw at the meeting. Dominating with their own point of view and not looking for much input from anyone else. When they raise their own personal standards of propriety I might take a second look at it. I won't mention names but I was bullied and belittled by one of those present, though he is not currently a member of our council but is a CSO member.
At the present time they seem to be unable to put aside those self interests and I believe most people present would testify to that. I do believe when you present yourself in a public forum almost demanding that an event which incurs expenses by the city as a police presence and cleanup by city crews but yet you do not open your books for inspection regarding the actual amount of money you make at a city sponsored event is a conflict of interest. I am willing to bet that the expenses incurred by the city of Peru are greater than the profit generated by the beer tent meaning the city is the loser. As stated in the N.T., it is all about alcohol.
getoverit wrote on September 15 2011 at 6:12 PM :
"hahaha.. I read through the comments and all of the suggestions that have been in previous comments including comments made by the "regular posters" things like fence in the beergarden, don't let alcohol run freely up and down waterstreet, move the family event somewhere else. It sure looks by reading this article is all everyone was suggesting. now these same posters are complaining about that. hahaha. Good Luck Perez, and hope you have real thick skin to fight the battle of the real people that run your city because you need it. I still give you credit Perez, I thought you would have coward down to them by now. I lived there, I lived the politics of there and you have a major mafia you are fighting. Move to Ottawa we will take you. Beer is not the #1 priority on our list. cuz in Peru..It's All about the alcohol. and me me me"
A comment from the News Trib blog from someone who does not live in Peru any longer. Interesting that he/she knows the politics of Peru as only one who lives here does and we the residents are still trying to fight the good fight but I can tell you that there are forces in town who are no longer in power that trying to revert this city back into the dark ages when no one knew what was going on.
There is more beer drank in Ottawa on each night of the Ottawa Riverfest than there is on July 4th on Water Street. The beer consumed in Utica with people walking up and down the streets with open containers of alcohol on five major promotions in a year is easily equivalent to the amount of beer sold in Peru in on premise locations for the whole year. A lot of the attendance at these events are the same people. The citizens of Ottawa and Utica have not and are not having any problems why is Peru having problems. It appears that some of those in Peru want to create a police state. If this is going to be the result of what is considered a good time lets give everyone a time out and go out of town for our fireworks. As other towns promote we are having to go to them anyhow. Because of the attitude of a few lets hope Peru does not create a atmosphere that our surrounding communities pass us up.
From the minutes of the Peru Recreation Commission of 8/9/11
"Mark Ptak, President of the Peru C.S.O. and Shawn Koehler, member of the Peru, C.S.O. were in attendance. Mark submitted a letter to the Recreation Commission to deliver to the Peru City Council. He read portions of the letter which in summation stated the C. S. O's volunteer activities and the fact that they feel the Water Street venue for the Independence Day fireworks celebration remains as the best location, Peru, C.S.O. feels that the City Council should formally vote on relocating the fireworks as well as any changes deemed necessary to control the sale of alcohol under temporary licenses. Letter submitted.
My question now is the C.S.O. is going to present this letter to our City Council and approximately half of the members now belong to the organization, do you honestly believe that any of them would vote against the organization to which they belong? In other words the fact that they are members that are sitting on our council are going to vote on something the C.S.O. has already endorsed and people believe that there is not a conflict of interest. How many letters would the citizens of this city have to write to the City Council, or how many petitions have to be sent in to have the same effect as the C.S.O. and the members who sit on the council.
This fireworks discussion is simply one symptom
of how our city is NOT independently managed.
I also believe that this is the letter Bob Ankiewicz read at the Public Grounds meeting on Sept. 14 of this week but I don't believe he gave credit to the writers of the letter and the letter has not been read by our City Council yet but perhaps will be at the meeting of 9/21. Keep your ears open.
This debate, argument, discussion, whatever you want to call it seems to be between the CSO and the citizens of Peru. What I don't understand is why the CSO should even have a say in the location of the fireworks and the venue. I think that should be between those who sponser the fireworks (the citizens of Peru - your tax dollar) and the council. Could someone please explain? Also, those members of the CSO who have not been involved in this fiasco should know that, in my opinion, their representatives have not acted in a very respectful, civil manner. They have not presented the CSO in a good light.
I talked to Mr. Witczak and he says he is not a member of the CSO.
When you open up a meeting to public comment, you should expect dissenting opinions. Otherwise, why have the meeting?
The whole topic/discussion about alcohol has caused more arguments than solutions. If alcohol were to be banned, or fenced in, or if whatever other means there was to suppress it, we still would not be able to stop it from occurring. For example: if the beer garden was fenced in at Waterstreet, who's to say I won't have a bottle of Coca Cola, half filled with Captain Morgan? Then what do we do? Search EVERYBODY'S drinks? We are trying to create a whole new market, which in this case, the market will create a smarter criminal. It isn't politics, its economics. As my example shows, banning it, or fencing it in won't stop it from happening.
9:27 AM
Justin, we even found a vodka bottle on the steps of St Mary's church this morning. I have not lived elsewhere and don't know how we as a city compare to others. When it has gotten to the point that we are finding liquor containers about our city and they are not picked up by city crews, then we have a problem that is beyond the fireworks event. It is not only a couple of people who dispose of their trash, it is many and in our mobile society, the culprits may not even be from Peru but we are not helping, when the city help is ignoring he problem. Trash on city streets does reflect upon the community as a whole.
All you have stated is true but as happens frequently the many suffer from the consequences of a few. But I do believe the police can effectively determine who is drinking what just like they are able to find a drunk driver. Somebody with a coke can that looks innocent but is acting inebriated should be checked and the word would soon get out there after some arrests for underage drinking.
One sniff of the contents will confirm what the can contains. Of course, this means we need a larger police presence actually walking among the crowds and of course that means an increased cost to the city.
Of course we would have trash leftover after 22,000 people venture down to waterstreet for the fireworks, much like you have trash leftover after 50 people leave a movie theatre. To my understanding your argument is towards drunk people, not just people drinking. Please correct this if it is wrong
So Lois - you are in favor of prohibition? That experiment failed - and made many criminals wealthy.
3:44 PM
Brian I guess you missed the fact that I am not a teetotaler, in fact about now , it must be time for a glass of wine from that new bottle of Zinfandel I just bought.
Justin - 22,000 people? Really? I don't believe that for one minute. What you people don't get and don't understand is that Mr. Perez has repeatedly stated that he is acting on behalf of his constitituents. That he received phone calls after the 4th expressing displeasure as to the way things were run and asking him to look into alternative methods of running this event. He is not taking this abuse for himself but for the people who are unhappy with the way things have been done and would just like to try a different venue. In other words, he is performing his aldermanic duties which is more than I can say for many others.
1:26 PM
I have no problem with adults having an alcoholic drink or two. I do have a problem with lack of control in an area where underage teens are drinking and where people can walk around with open cans/bottles of alcohol. Some people of legal age do not drink responsibly and then add the underage teens drinking and you have a problem. This is where sorry to say, a police presence is necessary and laws are enforced. Lets face it,too much alcohol and you have the chance of those people urinating wherever, vomiting, and being generally loud and obnoxious. If that is what your family enjoys, be a participant and if you don't find someplace else to spend your Holiday.
Yes, "Anonymous", 22,000 people. Not that they are there all at one time, but that is the total number of people that cross through waterstreet during the fireworks celebration, but that isn't the argument. I'm just curious as to how this problem is going to get resolved. How much more time is going to be wasted talking about banning alcohol? I agree with you, Lois, I dislike people that are out of control from drinking, but that is a decision that they made. We can all sit here and argue over statistics all night, but it won't bring us any closer to having a solution.
8:35 A.M.
He may or may not be but since the fee is only $5.00 for life and he was a council member at the time when everyone else was, I would find that strange that he was not, especially since he has a close association with Ald. Ankiewicz, and that is not an assumption. He is definitely a part of the pack. Brian did you make a special call to him to find that out for me? If so thank you.
7:02 Even though the lifetime fee is $5.00 and Joe was a council member it does not mean that he is a member of the CSO. Being that he has a close association with Ald. Bob does not make him a CSO member either, and you know what to assume does to a person.
I do know that Mr. Witzak is fully capabable of having the knowledge to know if he is a member of the CSO or not a member. Since he said he is not a member I'll take his word for it.
By the way Joe since the people of the 3rd ward thought enough of you to vote you as their representative for numerous years feel free to join the CSO if you want to.
Two numbers that have been substantiated are:
22,000 is the total number of people that cross through Water Street during the fireworks celebration.
2 is the total number of arrests made during the fireworks celebration on Water Street.
Absolutely move the fireworks off of Water Street,move everything off of Water Street. This land has to be sanctified.
1:58 And exactly how did you manage to count 22,000 people? Do you realize that that is the entire towns of La Salle and Peru squashed onto Water Street? Absurd!
Anonymous 2:09- 22,000 is the number of people that CROSSED THROUGH. I see a lot of people on here lose focus of the problem and get sidetracked easily. Most of the citizens want a referendum to solve problems in this town, but they can't even stay focused on this ONE problem- alcohol on waterstreet.
Your a redneck if you think the city should send a firetruck to wash off the alcohol on waterstreet.
I agree with Anon 2:09 that the 22,000 figure is totally inaccurate. Let them have their beer garden but fence it in. Have the taverns fence in the outdoor areas around their establishments. Do Not allow anyone outside these areas to have alcohol or they will be arrested. Water street is the safest area to view the fireworks and families should be able to enjoy them as well. Publicize the rules in the paper and on the radio and enforce the law. It should all be as simple as that.
Nothing is simple in Peru.
Post a Comment