Does Evanston have $50 million to $100 million to spare? If so, there are several ways the city could have a nifty new or newly-renovated Civic Center.

That’s the bottom line of the report from a consortium of city consulting firms released last week.

The report concludes that the least expensive option, at $48.1 million, is to build a new civic center on a new site downtown. That solution narrowly edged out the option of a phased gut-rehab of the existing building, at a cost of $50.6 million.

But to reach that conclusion the study assumes no cost for parking at the downtown site — effectively “borrowing” 405 spaces of parking capacity from existing downtown garages. The report estimates that including an on-site garage at the new building site would add $18.5 million to the cost.

The report also appears to inflate the cost of the phased rehab by several million, by assuming no portion of the existing site would be sold off for housing.

On the other hand, the phased rehab proposal includes no addition to the existing 215-car surface parking lot at the Civic Center.

The phased rehab plan also would not increase the size of the Civic Center beyond its current 112,000 square feet. City officials claim they need 130,000 square feet, the size of the proposed new building, to fully meet needs for housing city staff and providing public meeting space.

But if the city were to build downtown on property it already owns — for example, the parking lot fronting Chicago Avenue just north of Church Street — it could avoid a $7.5 million estimated site acquisition cost — cutting the total cost to just under $41 million.

The new construction figures assume the city manages to recover $23.3 million from selling off the existing Civic Center site for housing development and establishing a tax increment financing district to capture property tax revenue from the new homes to be built there.

The study also looked at several more expensive options, including building additions and garages onto a renovated existing civic center building, renovating the building all at once, and constructing a new civic center, complete with fully underground parking on the existing site.

The all-underground parking model more than doubled the cost of providing parking on site.

The problem, of course, is that, as Alderman Elizabeth Tisdahl, 7th Ward, said last week, “We have no money.”

The city, faced with a $140 million unfunded pension liability for its public safety employees, and substantial bond indebtedness for existing capital improvement projects, had to cut spending and raise the property tax levy over 7 percent this year.

The consultants’ report did not address piecemeal solutions proposed by some citizens groups, such as repairing the Civic Center’s leaking roof, but leaving more extensive renovation of the building for another day.

Related links

The full consultants’ report  (17MB)

Other Civic Center reports

Bill Smith is the editor and publisher of Evanston Now.

Join the Conversation

18 Comments

  1. Costly Solutions
    Bill:

    Good report. I am having trouble opening the consultants report, though. I do have a problem with some of the conclusions that you mention.

    1. Is the 130,000 square feet a wish number or a real one?
    2. The down town solution according to your comments has no cost to the city. Is lost income considered a cost. What about the payback of the TIF? Where will that income come from.
    3. If the New Civic Center were to move to the west side (old Robinson Company), I believe that there is enough land for outdoor uncovered parking which cost is negligible compared to building a multi story structure.
    This would probably cost less than building downtown just from a logistics point of view. There would also be no disruption to the down town core buisinesses.

    Your thoughts.

  2. Excessive costs cited for Civic Center rehab
    Last year, on April 4th, myself and another Friend of the Civic Center met Evanston’s City Manager, Julia Carroll @ the Mallinckrodt (College) In-the-Park development. A total renovation to a similar building. The developer Mr. Joel Pickus told us all, point blank that his cost was approx. $130 sq/ft. (that is $14.5M for 112,000 sq/ft)… let’s say this is off 20%. That is an extra $3 M – still more than half as much as some would like us to believe it costs to completely renovate Evanston’s Civic Center.

    At this time and place in the housing market, we’d get qualified contractors falling all over themselves to deliver high quality work at this price! Mallinckrodt-in-the-Park includes 80 kitchens and more than 120 baths – marble and other nice materials!

    See for yourself: http://www.mallinpark.com

    The Carol Ross Barney report is just more misinformation to confuse Evanston taxpayers. .. As Alderman Tisdahl suggests “we have no money”. I think that’s because we are wasting it on reports like this!

    Brian Becharas – Citizen, Taxpayer and Friend of the Civic Center

    1. Civic Center
      “The Carol Ross Barney report is just more misinformation to confuse Evanston taxpayers. .. As Alderman Tisdahl suggests “we have no money”. I think that’s because we are wasting it on reports like this!”

      Well…let’s get this Mr. Pickus to submit a bid..and other contractors too, of course (Junad is watching us…no favors for the special interests!) . If this Civic Center can be repaired for less than the cost of a new one, then we should keep it. All costs need to be considered – costs of moving, potential gains by selling the land of the current site, future tax revenue, cost of acquiring new land, cost of building a new center, cost of repairing the old one.

      But…this report should be done by impartial people who are honestly evaluating all of the costs..not by rabid partisans from the Friends of the Civic Center, Evanston Coalition to Prevent Development , Central St. NIMBY’s Association, or the other so-called ‘grass-roots’ organizations that plague Evanston.

    2. Hooray for Mallinckrodt
      This is not a realistic comparison, Brian. Renovations done by the government, on government owned property, are always subject to additional regulations, and the standards for residential construction are different than those of a public building. Anyway, we shouldn’t make decisions according to anecdotes like “I know a guy who says he can do it for $130.”…we take bids, analyze all the options, and get written contracts…

      And your claim that “At this time and place in the housing market, we’d get qualified contractors falling all over themselves to deliver high quality work at this price” works both ways…it seems that we could also get someone to build a new Civic Center, at a bargain price, on that city owned land on the west side, or even downtown. If contractors are willing to work cheap in Evanston, you have to assume that they will cheap all over, not just at your preferred site.

      The current Civic Center is outmoded, falling apart, and it is simply not worth the cost to keep it. Just like I eventually had to get rid of my 1984 Oldsmobile – eventually it was just not worth all the repair costs, and I had to get a newer model.

      The fact is, when you held a referendum on whether to keep the obsolete Civic Center, the vast majority of registered voters – approximately 88% – either stayed home or voted no. The people of Evanston are not interested in preserving this fossil. We should build a new Civic Center, in a more accessible location for the majority of residents. In the long run,we will save money on repairs and on heating.

      1. Response to Civic Center & Hooray for Mallinckrodt
        I’d like to take a moment to respond to Anonymous and Mr. John Evans (I wonder, any relation to THE John Evans…ton?)

        Dear Anonymous,

        Let’s take a second to examine “realistic”… but first I’d like to recognize that yes, there is a meaningful difference in the process of bidding for Government work. But just what about a +$300 per square foot difference ($130 sq/ft versus $450 sq/ft) as a significant premium don’t you get?

        Your car analogy is not valid (with me anyway)… It is all about how one cares for something… Regular maintenance and upgrades don’t have to break the bank. I have a 37 year old antique sports car that has never been restored and runs like a top with a good motor, brakes, hydraulics, tires and electrics. Last year I spent

        1. Civic Center
          “Your car analogy is not valid (with me anyway)… It is all about how one cares for something… Regular maintenance and upgrades don’t have to break the bank. I have a 37 year old antique sports car that has never been restored and runs like a top with a good motor, brakes, hydraulics, tires and electrics. Last year I spent

          1. Responding to Anonymous Re Civic Center
            Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous,
            You are a good American – Maybe you just wanted a new car, all the reasons you cite are all good ones. However, I feel strongly that we can’t afford to live in a disposable society anymore!

            Nice old buildings that still have very good bones can be updated to 21st Century standards. Do you propose that we shall gobble up enormous financial and natural resources to build a new one? And then hope the one we build will be better?

            Driving my 37 year old car (that oozes with character) on a nice summer day sure makes me feel good – which I believe, is why the Voters of Evanston have told their leaders that they want to maintain their grand old building located in a stately park setting as a place to conduct City business from.

            It is clear to me how you voted… You exercised your right to influence our City leaders. The majority, who cared enough to participate in the democratic process told our leadership how they feel. Our leadership has shown us time and time again how much they care about the wishes of the people they represent… perhaps using the kind of statistics you cite as their guide.

            Your argument on how many voted and the majority’s true will is very tenuous… It was bad enough that our City Council decided to add confusion to the mix by introducing a very poorly worded and confusing referendum question of their own… but the “preservationist” position was the winner – fair and square, like it or not, the majority rules… so what if it were an “advisory” referendum – it’s the will of the People!

            You want lower taxes and increased tax revenues? – What about the numerous TIFF districts that encompass parts of Evanston including the Civic Center (Land) redevelopment and the proposed Tower? Maybe I am wrong, but do these TIFF’s do anything to contribute to revenue growth (and lower your taxes) over the next 10 years? Methinks not!

            You said you want to save money…Great, please contact me or Dave Cook because on March 23rd, 2007 he received a “Preliminary Facility Assessment” from BCA, qualified contractors who renovate public buildings. Check out their website: http://www.bca-arch.com . This report indicates < $20 M to renovate Evanston’s Civic Center. This is the root of my “cheesy” disposition – Where is the other $30 M going? Let’s ask the Carol Ross Barney folks… Call me if you want a copy - I'm in the book. I say, fix the roof and do a phased renovation as monies are available. And of course, asking the City council to please stop wasting our money on studies that make it look like they are doing something for the public weal besides years of inertia on this issue. Hey thanks for the great idea on “Lower Taxes Now”… I like it! Perhaps I’ll make buttons that say “I am Mad as Hell and I am Not Going to Take it Anymore” (btw, great movie)! Respectfully submitted, Brian G. Becharas Citizen, taxpayer, etc. and willing to identify myself in public to take a stand P. S. I think that Evanston NIMBY’s are concerned about the quality of their community. They care about unbridled growth, crowding and the impact on everybody’s senses. The tower is just what we need - along with 400 more cars driving around downtown an Evanston currently saturated with condos... Yikes!

          2. representative government
            “Your argument on how many voted and the majority’s true will is very tenuous… It was bad enough that our City Council decided to add confusion to the mix by introducing a very poorly worded and confusing referendum question of their own… but the “preservationist” position was the winner – fair and square, like it or not, the majority rules… so what if it were an “advisory” referendum – it’s the will of the People!”

            No, Brian. A non-binding referendum is , by definition, non-binding. If the laws of the state and city permit holding a binding referendum, then go ahead and have one…but until then, it just doesn’t count.
            And really, it just is not reasonable to settle this kind of thing by referendum. As you pointed out, the City Council decided to add confusion to the mix by introducing a “confusing referendum question of their own”…but referenda often are incomplete, confusing, or contradictory. In you case,, your referendum did not specify how to pay for fixing the current building. You cannot just authorize projects without coming up with the funding for them – that is blatantly irresponsible.
            That is one reason why we have representative government, not government by referendum. It makes sense to have legislative bodies consider all the evidence and take responsibility for choosing between conflicting priorities.

            So, if the law permits, I suggest that you hold a binding referendum…complete with funding mechanism for the repairs. If the law does not permit this..well, here is what I suggest: Since you claim that 80% of the city supports your opinion, you guys should have no trouble electing a pro-NIMBY slate to the city council.

            This advice applies not just to the Civic Center people , but to the anti-tower people, the anti-Kendall people, the anti-development people in general…you guys always come pretend to represent all of Evanston..but isn’t that what we have council for? Get your fellow NIMBY’s elected to council.

            I think that if you try this, you will run into three problems:

            1. Not everyone in Evanston shares your pro-NIMBY views.
            ( This is the least of your problems, since you guys are better organized and get better turnout )

            2. Most of you seem to be in Wards 6 and 7
            ( Especially with the Civic Center and Kendall issues, I think you will find very little interest in the other 7 wards . These are local pet projects, and the other 7 aldermen have no interest in catering to north side NIMBY’s)

            3. Here is the big problem: Once you become accountable to voters, and responsbile for budgets, things won’t be so easy. It is easy to say that taxes should be lowered (as I do), and that the Civic Center should be repaired, and that the Central Street library should be kept , and that no new development should be allowed, and that every old building should be preserved, and that we should have better snow plowing, etc. Once you are forced to budget the money for all of these items, you will be forced to make choices ( lower taxes or Central St. library? ).

            So Brian, what will you and the other Friends of the Civic Center do if the voters pass referenda in favor of fixing the current Civic Center, lowering property taxes, preserving the libraries, and hiring more cops… all at the same time?

          3. To Anon… today’s edition
            Dear Anon,

            I am glad we are on a first name basis… Call me naïve but I have a lot of faith in the democratic process – looking good Nationally too!.

            I took a moment to visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
            3rd paragraph discusses non binding referenda… “A non-binding referendum is merely consultative or advisory. It is left to the government or legislature to interpret the results of a non-binding referendum and it may even choose to ignore them”… just as Evanston’s City Council seemingly has done with this issue.

            The point is that the People have spoken and the leaders (or our lack thereof) have chosen their course. Because they are “dissing” the People they serve, methinks many won’t survive the next election. (Because people like me… are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!) I will acknowledge the serving on the City Council is a tough, (mostly) thankless job – especially for the tiny honoraria received. Perhaps we need to change back to a strong Executive.

            Come on Anon… Concerning representative government – we are not being represented if the elected officials who are supposed to administer the public will are ignoring their constituents. Take a moment to consider that there have been 10 studies in as many years… I consider the latest just another example of wasted tax monies and using a (compliant) “Consultants Report” platform to disseminate inaccurate and confusing information to Evanstonians.

            Instead of grilling me, how about asking tough questions to the authors of the latest consultant report… It seems to me that the data was skewed to satisfy the current mindset of many on the City Council. In your continuing criticism here, you have not acknowledged the BCA proposal and it’s $19.6 M preliminary bid – this is 60% less than Carol Smith Barney report… doesn’t this stink a little bit to you?

            “So Brian, what will you and the other Friends of the Civic Center do if the voters pass referenda in favor of fixing the current Civic Center, lowering property taxes, preserving the libraries, and hiring more cops… all at the same time?”

            I will smile and know that I made a difference. We will have saved taxpayers a huge pile of money, prevented a beautiful old building from being buried in a landfill… and maintained the character of Evanston without adding a lot of unnecessary glass, steel and concrete to the already crowded downtown.

            I intend to continue to contribute my energy and resources to the community. .. Today I am teaching energy conservation at the Ecology Center.

            What are you going to do?

            Respectfully submitted, Brian Becharas
            Citizen, Activist and Potential Candidate?

          4. Charm and uniqueness of the historically signficant Civic Center
            I will smile and know that I made a difference. We will have saved taxpayers a huge pile of money, prevented a beautiful old building from being buried in a landfill… and maintained the character of Evanston without adding a lot of unnecessary glass, steel and concrete to the already crowded downtown.
            I intend to continue to contribute my energy and resources to the community. .. Today I am teaching energy conservation at the Ecology Center.

            Respectfully submitted, Brian Becharas
            Citizen, Activist and Potential Candidate?

            Well, I think you are missing the point..if you want to maintain an allegedly charming building, and maintain the ‘character’ of Evanston, then you have to come up with the funding for it. No, I have not read the proposal from the contractors about the Civic Center….and if it really is less expensive to go with them, then we should. But if the motivation for keeping that old building is ‘preserving character’ and other nonsense, then it is time to tear it down. Some older buildings are worth preserving…such as the Wrigley Building, the Carbon and Carbide , or my personal favorite the Monadnock. Some old buildings are just old…such as the 708 Church building, the Fountain Square building, and yes..the Civic Center ( And nobody has ever explained to me what is so special about this Hahn Building…did Abraham Lincoln live there? ) . When a building is just old, and has no significant historical or architectural value, then I have no problem tearing it down. (I am especially looking forward to the demolition of the Fountain Square building and the Best Western..they are not just old, but they are ugly and old.)

            So, the only legitimate argument in favor of keeping the current Civic Center is that it is less expensive than building a new one or renting/moving into another old building. Maintenance, heating, and all other costs need to be considered… if you have a good argument for keeping it, I am willing to listen, but if you are going to repeat NIMBY slogans about ‘character’ and ‘charm’ of decrepit buildings, then I am not interested. This city is not a museum – people live here, and glass and steel are easier to maintain and let in more light than old granite buildings. If it is not cost effective to rehab a building, it deserves to be torn down.

            If you want charm, go to Williamsburg or New Orleans or Disneyworld.


            Respectfully submitted, Brian Becharas
            Citizen, Activist and Potential Candidate?

            Well..potential candidate….run on an anti-tax platform in the 1st ward, and I’ll vote for you. But if you run on a pro-NIMBY platform…well, not in MY back yard…go to Ward 6 or 7, where you will be more at home. And if you don’t win, you can always just hang out on this website and post irresponsible and unsubstantiated statements about the city government , like certain other unsuccessful candidates have done.

            {Please, Brian, let it stay….please…please..please…}

          5. Anonymous poster are you really interested in saving taxes?
            Many of the statements you are making about Architecture and buildings are off base. You assume a new building might be better than the old building – take a look at a few of the new buildings here – many are very cheaply constructed and by the way several architects and groups here are complaining the city is not enforcing the energy code.

            Did you look at the civic center reports? I think it is very interesting about the option for parking – they are going to use the excess parking in the garages? Since you are claiming to be concerned about taxes, are you at all concerned they built so much excess capacity in the garages?

            Also you assume that NIMBYs – want to save every old building – did you look at some of the plans for the civic center site? They want to basically use up the open space to build on. I think it is not likely what they build will sell well and the taxpayers will foot the bill. Downtown Evanston is attractive to the type of buyers who want condos – away from the downtown – they may have alot of trouble selling. I do not care what developers want to build on their own property provided it is zone correctly – but if the council is going to start selling land and connecting it to a new building – they better make really certain it will work – and by the way if you care about Taxes you better care they do not create another Tif here, because it is not going to help you taxes for another 20-30 years.

            I favor maintaining the open space and the Civic Center building while not an Architectural jewel is worth saving – but the real bottom line is the city does not have the money to move – and if they come up with some scheme with aTIF and property sales you and I will pay. If you think not – maybe you can tell me what is going on with the Sherman ave garage and why the auditor had concerns about the TIF there?

            By the way if you think the current council members know what they are doing I found their statements in the Roundtable about Asbestos in the Civic Center as a big Joke -( one of the jusification they should move ) it is clear they do not know what they are doing. They are claiming the Asbestos is a renovation problem – what these council members should be asking by the way are the properly maintaining the asbestos in the building now! Given their lack of maintainance that might be a bigger problem for everyone who is currently using the building!
            ( By the way one of the west exit doors has been problem for six months and does not work it is stuck closed will not open, if this was a private building the city would be all over the owner to fix it. given it is limiting safe exiting from the building)

          6. Questions for Junad

            Junad –

            Some questions about your posting :

            “Did you look at the civic center reports? I think it is very interesting about the option for parking – they are going to use the excess parking in the garages? Since you are claiming to be concerned about taxes, are you at all concerned they built so much excess capacity in the garages?”

            – Why does this matter? If ‘excess capacity’ has already been built into garages, we have it and should use it. Whether it was wrong to build it in the first place is irrelevant. It is there, it can be used. Why are you bring up this issue?

            ” do not care what developers want to build on their own property provided it is zone correctly – but if the council is going to start selling land and connecting it to a new building – they better make really certain it will work – and by the way if you care about Taxes you better care they do not create another Tif here, because it is not going to help you taxes for another 20-30 years. “-

            Well, we aren’t getting any revenue from that land now, are we? We won’t get any for the next 30 years, or afterwards. The city would get some money from the sale of the land, and if TIF revenue is used to finance the new civic center, it sounds like a good idea.

            “I favor maintaining the open space and the Civic Center building while not an Architectural jewel is worth saving – but the real bottom line is the city does not have the money to move – and if they come up with some scheme with aTIF and property sales you and I will pay. ”

            But if they come up with a scheme to repair the current building, we will pay for it too. Either way, we pay.

            “If you think not – maybe you can tell me what is going on with the Sherman ave garage and why the auditor had concerns about the TIF there?”

            Whatever.

            “They are claiming the Asbestos is a renovation problem – what these council members should be asking by the way are the properly maintaining the asbestos in the building now! ”
            Well..asbestos is a renovation problem. This will have to be addressed if the current building is renovated, or if it is destroyed.

            “( By the way one of the west exit doors has been problem for six months and does not work it is stuck closed will not open, if this was a private building the city would be all over the owner to fix it. given it is limiting safe exiting from the building) ”

            So the building is a firetrap and full of asbestos….a problem with old buildings. Not worth keeping.

          7. I think the real John Evans would turn over in his grave —
            I think the real John Evans would turn over in his grave given all the nonsense going on here by the city council!

            You think it is OK to over build parking? That is money the taxpayer have lost since the TIF is now paying for extra capacity – that is causing it to go out longer and cost more – and by the way by the time they have paid it down – the garage will be an old building – and as I recall you want to demolish all old buildings in Evanston?

            Also if you are concerned ask how the council is planning to use the parking both for the new tower and the Civic Center?

            Selling off land – is not necessary a bad idea that is if you have alot of it – the land around the Civic Center is not really excessive land holdings of the city. It is just a scheme by the council members who do not want to renovate the existing building – to claim they are going to get a pay back by selling the land – as I stated before this is very like to fail and cost the taxpayers more! The real John Evans would no doubt see right through this nonsense!

            You should know what the TIFs are doing if you claim you want more. Not “What ever”

            A door not in repair does not make a building a fire trap – the slum lord who is not repairing it is at fault – and finally asbestos in a building is not a problem – the majority of building here have it. It just has to be properly handled. If you are concerned about asbestos you need to move to Naperville or Kane county to a cookie cutter subdivision, with cheaply built new homes without asbestos. Where every inch of land has been used up.

          8. Civic Center
            Junad,

            You are a man after my own heart… Would you please communicate with me directly. Thx

            Brian G. Becharas
            619 Oakton St.
            Evanston, IL 60202 USA
            Personal e-Mail: bbecharas@aol.com
            Home/office 847.475.0319 Mobile 847.922.1114
            Skype: brian.becharas e-Fax 847.425.7128

      2. Attempt to Undermine The Voters
        “The fact is, when you held a referendum on whether to keep the obsolete Civic Center, the vast majority of registered voters – approximately 88% – either stayed home or voted no. The people of Evanston are not interested in preserving this fossil.”

        The vast majority of registered voters usually stay home. If you puruse the rolls, you’ll find a vast majority of the registered are dead or made up. No doubt they’ll show up for the next aldermanic and mayoral election.

        So let’s get this straight. You have combined the no shows with the nay sayers and assume they are on the 18% -your side- of this issue? It is the Votes that count. For those that did not bother to vote – their votes don’t count. The Voters of Evanston care very much about Evanston, and preserving the character of Evanston, and its Civic Center. Voting, Evanston taxpayers want the Civic Center to remain where it is.

        Moreover, we can’t afford to move the Civic Center. What do you suggest? Bonding for more money to do so? Who do you think is paying for the Debt? No? Tax Increment Financing you say? I can’t wait for the proposal for a seventh TIF district in the eight square miles of Evanston. Have you lost your Anonymous mind?

        1. non-binding referendum
          The vast majority of registered voters usually stay home. If you puruse the rolls, you’ll find a vast majority of the registered are dead or made up. No doubt they’ll show up for the next aldermanic and mayoral election.

          Mimi, you are just wrong here. Absolutely wrong.
          Nobody is talking about dead or made up voters. The fact is, in the November 2004 presidential election, Evanston had around 36000 voters come out.

          In the April 2007 non-binding Civic Center referendum, how many people came out? I don’t have the numbers here, but I believe around 3800 support the non-binding referendum. 3800/36000 is around 11% .

          Don’t tell me that those 32000 extra voters in 2004 are all dead or made up. The point is, you held a non-binding referendum and nobody except some hardcore Civic Center supporters showed up to vote on the meaningless question. The vast majority of voters ignored you.

          Nobody claimed that those people who stayed home were against your cause. ( Show me where that is posted, please! ). The claim was..that 88% of voters just didn’t come out to support it…they either didn’t agree with you, or weren’t paying attention, or didn’t feel strongly enough to come out.

          The aldermen should recognize that most people don’t care, and take the results of the non-binding referendum for what they are worth. And you should stop pretending that this non-binding referendum has force of law.

          1. Nobody Talks About Dead Voters
            “Mimi, you are just wrong here. Absolutely wrong.
            Nobody is talking about dead or made up voters. The fact is, in the November 2004 presidential election, Evanston had around 36000 voters come out.”

            You are right. Nobody is talking about dead or made up voters. Need I remind you, we live in Cook County, where across the country, nationwide we are known for our dead voters? Many people who live in Evanston do not want to address this issue; this is after all, Evanston, and not Chicago, right?

            What I am suggesting is not that 32,0000 who voted in 2004 pres primary are dead or made up. Rather, that it is a fact that the voter registration rolls are swelled with “people” who are improperly registered to vote, non-existent in some way, and “they” vote!

            Upon inspection, (and yes, I have in fact inspected, and documented) “people” who are registered to vote at an address – and found no such person lives at that address, but guess what? That person voted! Or, “people” who registered a 1982 vehicle at an address with the Secretary of State’s office and registered to vote at the same time, and what do you know? No such person actually lives at that address, and you guessed it – that person voted too! Then there are the “dead” voters. These are “people” who once were alive, and may have been voters at one time. However, presently, “other people” have assumed their identity to exercise their former right to vote. This is what is known as voting in the name of another. These are all example of “voters” who are currently on the voter rolls in the City of Evanston. If you want to dispute that, maybe you’d like to take off your mask and join me at David Orr’s office?

  3. Civic Center Report is like the Pension mess – poor assumptions
    The biggest problem I have with the report it is based on the need of 130,000 square feet – why? The council needs to correct this – walk through the building now – look at all the vacant space. Also look at all the wasted space – the city just does not need this – this is not much different that assuming firefighters and police officers retire at 65!

    Good take a look at some of the offices employees have many have offices that are 3 to 4 times the size of what any employee would have in the real world.

    As I have stated time and time again the council members need to down side city government then look at the real needs of space! Given all they like to do is spend and tax – and waste money on report after report – I am not to hopeful!

Leave a comment
The goal of our comment policy is to make the comments section a vibrant yet civil space. Treat each other with respect — even the people you disagree with. Whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims.

Your email address will not be published.