|
|
The
Glenview Watch November 25, 2001 |
|
When Suzanne Douglas agreed to rent the house on Prairie Street last summer, she knew there were problems, but she says the landlord promised to fix them. Still grieving after the death of her 8-year-old son – buried in a pile of sand at a downtown Glenview construction site – she hoped the new home would be a comfortable refuge, a peaceful place where she and two surviving sons could recover. Instead, the house on Prairie Street turned into another nightmare.
"It was a real bachelor pad," she recalls. "Filthy, dirty! But for $1,550 a month I could have a house with a lawn in Glenview." Douglas asked for help from her friends, and six spent a week removing trash, cleaning and painting, but the volunteers could not fix plumbing and electrical problems. "The toilet upstairs drains fecal matter and water through the walls into my son's room," Douglas later wrote in a letter to village building and zoning inspector Leslie Carr. "The downstairs toilet doesn't work. . .My washing machine, which does not turn on higher than low, fills up my basement sink and won't drain for five days."
In the same letter, Douglas said live wires were sticking out of the walls in the game room, exposed to water leaking from the upstairs bathroom, and "when my dishwasher is working, all of the water flushes down through the wall into the basement through electrical units."
Inspector Carr began keeping a record of the case in mid-June when she "received letter outlining tennant's [sic] concerns." On June 15, Carr called the legal owner of the property, Glenview resident Madelyn Anderson, and mailed her a copy of the complaint. On June 21, Carr says she returned a call from Mrs. Anderson's son, an attorney. "Mark Anderson requested I contact him when an inspection would be made, and his father would be available," the village inspector wrote.
On that same day, Douglas and a friend met with Mrs. Anderson's husband, Joseph Anderson, to discuss a series of improvements. After that meeting, an attorney for Douglas drafted a proposed amendment to the tenant's two-year lease requiring, among other things, that Joseph Anderson "inspect electrical fixtures, connections and outlets to determine if they are safe and consistent with the building codes of the Village of Glenview." The document, on file with the village, also requires Anderson to repair or replace any electrical hazards, repair or replace both toilets, install working smoke alarms, inspect and repair windows, put in security lighting at the front and back doors, install screens in bedroom windows, remove additional refuse left by the previous tenants, and replace or repair the leaky dishwasher.
Douglas thought Joseph Anderson had agreed to do those things. So did her friend, but to date she says the landlord has not signed the proposed amendment. The Watch called Joseph Anderson to discuss the matter, but he declined to talk.
INSPECTION DAY
On June 28, village records show several building and zoning inspectors visited the house on Prairie Street. Plumbing and structural property inspector Steve Cutaia found 29 possible violations of Glenview's building and maintenance code, including windows that wouldn't open, an inoperable toilet on the first floor, an unstable toilet on the second floor, a leak in the first floor hallway ceiling, radiators without controls, downspouts and gutters filled with debris, bricks in need of grout and repair, peeling paint, open electrical wires and moldy carpet in the basement. Cutaia's report disputed the tenant's claim that the dishwasher leaked into the basement.
Electrical inspector Greg Anderson, who is not related to the landlord, noted 15 possible violations. Angela Padula and Patricia Livingston found several potential health violations: weeds in excess of eight inches high, dead branches in the yard, moldy carpet and water-damaged shelving in the basement.
Inspector Carr reported the battery in a basement smoke detector was dead, the battery in a first- floor detector was missing, and there were no detectors in the bedrooms. She said the landlord should remove things being stored around the boiler in the basement, clean up the lint and dust that had built up behind the dryer, get rid of an extension cord running from one room to another and provide cover plates on all open electrical outlets and switches.
On July 20, the village sent landlord Joseph Anderson a notice of violation, citing a series of chapters, articles and sections of the municipal code. Anderson is directed to take remedial action by July 30: "Repair windows to be easily openable and capable of being held in position by window hardware, remove moldy carpet from basement, service smoke detector on first floor, replace battery in basement smoke detector, and provide smoke detectors in all sleeping areas, refer to Electrical Department violations and call for reinspection."
The file does not contain a list of the specific electrical violations, but it does include information from Glenview's fire and police departments. On July 24, Douglas called the fire department to report a broken water pipe. In his report, Fire Lt. Spencer Kimura "found several leaks coming from the main sewer line of the house." He "advised occupants about the potential hazard when standing in water and touching electrical outlets/switches," and "forwarded a report to the Building Department."
Police officer P. Sheehan -- called to assist the fire department – reported speaking with Lt. Kimura. "He said the drain pipe that the dishwasher feeds into is leaking above exposed wires in the ceiling of the basement. I also saw a second leak which came from the sewer in the area of an electric box in the southwest corner of the basement. . .There is a previous building code and zoning incident that was reported at the same address."
FAMILY TIE TO VILLAGE HALL
On July 23, Douglas wrote to inspector Carr with a complaint unrelated to the house. She said her landlord's attorney, Mark Anderson, "reminds me consistantly [sic] that his wife is on the Board of Trustees in Glenview." Anderson is married to Mary Beth Denefe who was elected to the Glenview Village Board last spring.
Another Glenview resident who has tried to help Douglas says he also had a conversation with the landlord's son and lawyer in which Mark Anderson said his wife was a trustee. Anderson told Glenview Watch he "might have mentioned" that his wife is on the Village Board." Asked why he would have said that, Anderson replied, "It just came out in the conversation." Does his wife know that he mentions her name in the course of matters involving village regulation? Mark Anderson says he isn't sure.
The Watch asked inspector Carr if she was aware the property in question was owned by Trustee Denefe's in-laws. She said that at first she did not know, but sometime before the inspections took place she learned of the family connection. Was she told by the landlord or his lawyer that a relative sat on the Glenview Village Board? Carr said she could not remember.
On July 26, Carr noted that she had spoken with attorney Mark Anderson who "stated an electrician and plumber have been retained to do repair work." On July 30, Carr wrote that landlord Joseph Anderson "is working with the tenant, has corrected the plumbing and fire department concerns, is meeting with the electrician Wednesday and will call for a reinspection."
On August 1, Carr recounts a conversation with Suzanne Douglas. "She questioned [why] a citation was not issued to date. I explained I had spoken with Mr. Anderson who was working with the tenant, the work was in progress and he would call for reinspection, which I expect to be sometime next week. If a citation were issued, the next court date would be August 17."
Had a court found the Andersons in violation of a single village zoning or building ordinance, the landlords could have been fined $50-$500 a day.
SITUATION UPDATE
Douglas says many of the problems she noted in June have been corrected, but she claims her dishwasher still leaks, her washer doesn't work, and her downstairs toilet won't flush. Mark Anderson says he doesn't know if appliances in the home are working, but claims his mother has spent more than $8,000 to comply with village code. In a letter to Douglas on November 19, Madelyn Anderson wrote, "You were told before you moved into the house that the washer and dryer located in the basement of the home were left by prior tenants and that the landlord would not be responsible to repair or replace either item. You were also told that the toilet would not be replaced because it was working properly both when you moved into the house and during the inspection this past summer. . .When I had Rich take a look at the dishwasher several weeks ago, he said that there was a lot of food in the bottom of the dishwasher that needed to be cleaned out but that it was otherwise working fine."
Glenview's Department of Building and Zoning inspected the home again on November 21. Asked if it normally takes more than four months to resolve complaints of this kind, inspector Leslie Carr says the village has little experience in this area – that a property maintenance code was not adopted until July 1999. She added that some of the tenant's complaints are not addressed by local law. There is, for example, no requirement that a landlord provide a working dishwasher or washing machine.
Suzanne Douglas says she can't afford to repair the appliances herself. A flight attendant for United Airlines, she took voluntary furlough after September 11 and could not even pay November's rent on time. Mark Anderson says Douglas was assessed a late fee of $100 and served with a five-day notice "because she is late on the rent and must pay up or face the consequences, including eviction." Douglas says she has now paid for November and made an advance payment on December's rent. She hopes her relations with the Andersons will improve and that everyone can enjoy a peaceful holiday season.
EDITOR'S NOTE
In our reporting, we try to be fair and accurate. To that end, we called a number of people in the Building and Zoning Department at Village Hall to discuss details of this story. Most did not call back, and when we placed our second call to Leslie Carr, she asked us to talk with Janet Mulvey, assistant to Village Manager Paul McCarthy. We left a voicemail for Miss Mulvey asking whether local ordinance requires all toilets in a home to work and whether any regulations govern plumbing leaks.
Two days later, we received a letter from Mulvey: "I have enclosed a Freedom of Information request form," she wrote. "To ensure I do not misinterpret your voice message regarding ordinances, please complete the enclosed form by explicitly describing the ordinances you are looking for. As a matter of policy, citizen requests for ordinances require filing a Freedom of Information request. As a matter of background, the Village has seven working days to respond to your request."
With all due respect, The Watch believes this "policy" to be nonsense. The state's Freedom of Information statute was designed to give citizens access to government documents. We can certainly find Glenview's code in the public library. The problem is that we will spend a great deal of time researching a question that could easily be answered by someone in the Building and Zoning Department – someone who works for the citizens of this community and should be willing to help citizens understand the law.
Secretive, bureaucratic behavior in the Village Manager's office does not serve the public. Instead, it feeds a perception that Village Hall may have something to hide, and that officials like Mulvey may feel obliged to protect elected officials from public scrutiny.
TRUSTEE BLASTS VILLAGE MANAGEMENT
By law, Glenview is supposed to sit down with representatives from local schools, the park district and library each year to let them know how much money will be coming to them through a tax increment financing plan at The Glen. The meeting is supposed to be public, and it's supposed to be held in December. Instead, village management has scheduled a closed door session on November 28.
In a sharply-worded memo to the village manager and trustees, board member John Crawford objects – citing provisions of state law and complaining that village management has failed to provide the specific information required. "The papers I received are the worksheets used for the computation of the Jurisdictional Payments," he writes. Without detailed background information, "they are incomprehensible."
In a previous memo, Crawford said Don Owen, Glenview's director of economic development, "would not be able to present any report prior to the meeting because he needed some figures from the school districts. This is entirely unsatisfactory."
And in a note to the village manager, Crawford writes, "Waiting until the night of the meeting to distribute 35 pages of densely-packed figures is a good way to discourage any questions at the meetings with the Core Jurisdictions." He asked Manager Paul McCarthy to send detailed information to the schools, park district and library at least seven days in advance and will propose an amendment to the original TIF ordinance to assure that the law is followed in future.
Trustee Donna Pappo says she agrees with Crawford's position on this issue.
FIRE DEPARTMENT MORALE FALTERS
The mood remains tense at Glenview's fire houses as the men negotiate for a raise. Village Hall is offering a 4 percent increase, but the firemen say they're paid substantially less than their brothers in neighboring suburbs. Meanwhile, the case of fire Lt. Steve Harnett has been continued. He charges that Deputy Chief Michael Sawicki threatened to punch him while the two men were working at Glenview's main fire house. Hartnett requested a transfer after pressing charges but was forced to continue working under Sawicki for several weeks before being moved to Glenview's other fire house.
Hartnett and three witnesses were supposed to appear at the Cook County Courthouse in Skokie at 1:30 p.m. November 21. At the last minute, Hartnett was told the case would be heard at 9 a.m. in a different courtroom. Only one witness got the word, and a court reporter failed to show up, forcing continuation of the case until December 31.
DOES
HIGH SCHOOL DRUG POLICY FLUNK THE TEST?
Last year Glenview's high school expelled a record 13 students for
substance abuse – the highest number since 1986-87 when District 225
launched its controversial zero tolerance policy requiring that kids
caught with drugs or alcohol on campus be kicked out for at least a
semester.
The Pioneer Press shared the latest statistics in its Wilmette newspaper
but has yet to break the news in District 225. Reporter Lynne
Stiefel noted the annual GBS number – 13 -- was higher than the total
number of students expelled from Glenbrook North in the past decade.
"The disparity adds fuel to the long-simmering debate that
enforcement of District 225's zero tolerance policy depends on the
willingness of faculty to report violations, and therefore is enforced
inconsistently," Stiefel wrote.
At neighboring New Trier, a new program puts the emphasis on counseling
students who are found to be using drugs. There, eight kids were
suspended briefly for drug violations – down from 23 the previous year.
Dean of Students Judy Brinton says the adviser program has allowed New
Trier to keep a closer watch on troubled kids and to attack problems
"before they've reached a crescendo."
The American Bar Association opposes zero tolerance, and Harvard
University's School of Education is on record against it, but GBS
Principal David Smith supports this approach, claiming it has worked well.
"The difference at social events – homecomings, dances, football
games, pep rallies – is dramatic," he says. "Students
know they can't use drugs here."
Smith admits the problem may simply have moved off campus, but what kids
do away from school is not his responsibility, nor is he worried about the
difference between treatment of students at South and North.
"My concern is South," he says, "and the issue is whether
our responsibility is to the individual or to the general population of
the school. By removing students who are using drugs, we may prevent
problems for other students."
He adds that youngsters who are expelled can continue their education
through a computer-based program at the Ombudsman – a storefront
classroom on Shermer Road and may also receive counseling through Youth
Services.
Editor's note: Principal Smith told The Watch that zero tolerance
can be devastating for students who are expelled, and he is aware that
addiction to drugs or alcohol is a medical problem. He also says
most of the professionals in his guidance department probably oppose zero
tolerance, and he won't rule out the possibility that New Trier's approach
is effective.
Early next month, the District 225 board will hold a closed-door session
to discuss its priorities for the year ahead. Given statistics
reported by the Pioneer Press and Principal Smith's admission that zero
tolerance is not perfect, we hope the board will take another look at this
policy and ask some thought provoking questions.
Should a first offense be treated differently than repeated violations?
Should the student's school record and personal history be considered?
Based on New Trier's experience, might suspensions be sufficient to deter
most on-campus drug or alcohol use?
Members should ask whether every instance of drug or alcohol use on campus
constitutes a threat to the student body as a whole. In many
cases, we think the real victims of substance abuse are the abusers
themselves, and where there is clear impact on other kids – as is the
case with drug dealers or students who get drunk and start fights
– more serious penalties might be appropriate.
We hope District 225 board members will keep in mind that adolescents are
not adults. They are still learning and will make mistakes. Throwing
them out of school for non-violent offenses may compound their problems
and subvert the basic mission of education – to help young people grow
into responsible adults.
As a respected educational institution, GBS might even want to study the
outcome of its actions to date with social science teachers, guidance
counselors or professors from nearby universities doing a survey of kids
who have been expelled for substance abuse over the years? What were
the circumstances of their dismissal, and how did expulsion impact their
lives? Do they believe, in retrospect, that zero tolerance was a
good thing? In collaboration with faculty members at New Trier,
this community could provide an important service, helping other schools
to better understand the implications of zero tolerance and the
alternatives for schools nationwide.
Finally, we think the school board should debate whether one punishment
really fits all crimes. As the Glenview Announcements wrote in an
editorial last year, "Adults don't automatically lose their jobs
after being arrested for DUI or drug possession. Students shouldn't
be subjected to a higher standard."
TRUSTEES WIN ONE FOR THE SCHOOLS
The man who wants to build a couple of houses off Landwehr Road, adjacent
to the Indian Ridge subdivision came before the Village Board last week,
asking that the property be annexed. Under local ordinance,
developers of fewer than three homes are not subject to impact fees for
the schools, park district and village. In this case, however,
Trustee Guinane wanted to make impact fees a condition of annexation, and
attorney Jeff Randall said that was okay.
The developer objected, suggesting that it was unfair to "change the
rules in the middle of the game," and called the fees
"horrendous." Trustee Jeff Lerner, who just retired from
the Glenbrook High School Board, said he supports impact fees but agreed
with the developer.
Trustee Crawford wondered just how much money was involved. Manager
Paul McCarthy said it was about $40,000. Crawford thought that was
fair in light of the fact that the builder would have access to Glenview
sewers and water service, making the new homes more valuable.
Besides, he reasoned, "if a family moves in there with three children
in the high school, it's going to cost the district an average of $13,000
for each of those students."
Trustee Donna Pappo said the impact fees would mean better schools for
buyers' kids to attend.
Five votes were required for annexation to take place. Trustee Mary
Beth Denefe recused herself, saying her husband was the attorney for the
Indian Ridge Homeowners' Association. Lerner voted no – refusing to
allow the imposition of impact fees on an unwilling developer.
"I'm disappointed in you, Trustee Lerner – with your time on the
school board ..." said Guinane. "No, no, let's don't go
there," said President Carlson, preventing a verbal brawl.
Pappo and Crawford then proposed a compromise – allowing the developer
to pay fees on only one house, but Lerner would not be swayed.
Guinane, Pappo and Crawford then refused to approve the annexation without
fees, leaving the developer to build in unincorporated Glenview.
That's when he stepped back to the microphone. "If I pay the
fees [on one home], would you annex us at this time?" he asked.
After a few minutes of discussion, Lerner said he would go along if the
developer would "voluntarily" pay impact fees. That said,
the board voted unanimously to annex.
Editor's note: We were surprised by Trustee Lerner's lack of
understanding about this issue given his time on the District 225 board.
At one point, he told Trustee Crawford that impact fees could not be used
to pay on-going educational expenses – that they could only be used for
bricks and mortar. In fact, in the context of an annexation
agreement, that rule does not apply. Lerner further stated, in
error, that developers at The Glen were not paying impact fees to District
225. They are paying, but the amount is based on an old formula that
values land at $40,000 per acre, just 10 per cent of what developers pay
under a new formula proposed by Trustee Pappo. Now that he's retired
from 225, we hope Lerner will have more time for the homework needed to be
a responsible trustee.
READERS WRITE
AB and others who spend time around The Glen have noticed that local
police are aggressively working to stop drivers from speeding through the
new neighborhood: "Is this because Glenview wants to show the new
guys on the block that their neighborhood is in good hands? I have
never seen a police car radar the abundant speeders racing down my street.
The police would have a field day. I have complained, but my
comments seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Instead, I see the police
with their radar making sure speeders don't drive down Patriot where very
few people live. Could it be that my home is not worth enough money
to warrant having a police car camp on my block?"
The Watch replies: The Glen has, indeed, been designated for
increased enforcement. Commander Scott Stewart says citizens had
been complaining about cars speeding along Patriot Boulevard. They were
not necessarily Glen residents but, perhaps, people on their way to Park
Center or Dominick's. Patriot is a wide, straight road where folks
may be tempted to speed and radar is highly effective. (On streets
that curve, the technology is less accurate.) In any event, Stewart
says citizens who want their own streets monitored by Glenview police
should call 729-5000, hit zero and ask for the traffic department. Your
request may bring a patrol car or the mobile speed radar unit to your
neighborhood, but it probably won't happen immediately since Glenview has
only two officers assigned solely to traffic enforcement and accident
investigation.
Mike G writes about separation of church and state: "Upon
reading your article concerning Norma Morrison and the inappropriateness
of prayer at governmental meetings, I noticed that in the Editor's note
the U.S. Constitution was cited as decreeing ‘separation of church and
state.' The fact is that in a Danbury, Connecticut church Thomas
Jefferson suggested that there should be a ‘wall of separation between
church and state.' The phrase ‘separation of church and state'
cannot be found in our Constitution."
The Watch replies: You're quite right about the term `separation of
church and state.' Historian and author Eugene Finerman, a
Northbrook resident and Watch reader writes: "Our Founding Fathers
were, for the most part, deists and agnostics. As men of the
Enlightenment, they believed in reason rather than dogma, and they assumed
that any God would share their intellectual perspective. Even in
their most partisan period, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would have
agreed on that point. The oft-quoted reference to ‘the separation of
church and state' is not in the Constitution. It is Jefferson's
interpretation of the First Amendment, addressed in a letter to a Baptist
church in Connecticut. He wrote: ‘Believing with you that religion
is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes
account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative
powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and
State.'"
John Kareken takes us to task for the editor's note following our story
about the latest silent prayers at meetings of the Plan Commission:
"Your comment about the U.S. Constitution, not the ACLU, separating
church and state was supercilious, even more so than your usual editorial
comment. The issue raised by your story was a bit more specific. It was
about prayer. Smarter people have disagreed on the prayer issue and its
relation to the establishment clause. State your personal opinion about
public prayer at government functions, if you want. Don't use the issue to
poke fun at someone who you think is mentally inferior to you."
The Watch replies: We do not think Howard Silver is mentally
inferior to us. In fact, we have praised his keen mind and ability
to dissect the details of development in the past. We do not agree with
Silver's wish to pray at public meetings and thought his remark about the
ACLU an unnecessary slam against that organization.
With regard to the case of a fire department lieutenant pressing assault
charges against his superior, DM writes: "If the human resource
people at Village Hall behaved like HR people at local corporations,
removing the deputy chief for assaulting one of his men, I doubt that this
court case would be taking place. Criminal charges are the lieutenant's
only option if he wants his supervisor removed. I wonder if the
human resource department at Village Hall chose or was pressured to wash
their hands of this situation. I also think it was inexcusable that the
village took several weeks to process a transfer for the lieutenant.
I hope his fellow firemen are
showing him 100 percent support because it could just as easily have been
one of them the deputy chief exploded on. How do you go into a fire scene
with confidence knowing the guy that is giving you orders committed an
assault on you and you are having to press criminal charges against him to
get what is right and just? I wouldn't want the deputy chief to be
watching my back!"
YOUR TURN
What's on your mind? Drop us a line at 3537 Maple Leaf Drive, Glenview, IL 60025 or by e-mail at GlenviewWatch@aol.com. Contributions to assist with the costs of our website, duplication and mailing can also be sent to the address above. They are not tax deductible but are much appreciated. Thanks for reading and for keeping in touch. --Dean Schott and Sandy Hausman, Co-Editors of The Watch.