- Keeping up with Aida: A western adventure, part three
- State prepares for thousands of medical marijuana applications
- Rockford’s Choices Natural Market celebrates Non-GMO Month
- Week 5 NFL picks: Lions to improve to 4-1, Packers and Bears will keep pace at 3-2
- Craft Beer Scene Around Rockford: Revolution Brewing’s Oktoberfest offers good all-around balance
- Rockford’s Fall ArtScene at 37 locations Oct. 3-4
- Tales from the Trough: Preseason interview with ‘The Voice of the IceHogs,’ Mike Peck
- Mr. Green Car: Saltwater-powered car: the Quant e-Sportlimousine
- Charges re-filed against seven Hells Angels
- Tube Talk: Addicted to ‘Rehab Addict’
To the Editor
• • •
Thanks to Doug for track dedication article
Editor’s note: The following e-mail was sent to Doug Halberstadt, sports writer.
Thank you so much for running the article about our track dedication [
Illinois Growth Enterprises to dedicate Herbert H. Hodges Track,
Aug. 19-25, 2009]. Fortunately, the weather cooperated. It was a great experience for everyone that came to the program. I was surprised that almost everyone joined in on the first lap around the track. Thank you again for your coverage. We received several phone calls from folks that saw your article.
Illinois Growth Enterprises
• • •
Library funding misrepresented
Library supporters have tried mightily to muddy the waters by misrepresenting library employees as city employees. The library has always been its own separate governmental entity, with its own power to tax. It’s not required by state statute to provide employee pension benefits.
The mind-boggling claim that
the library has been managing prudently without a referendum for years
couldn’t be further from the truth. In addition to their annual tax revenue, library hierarchy have weaseled millions through back-door referendums—selling bonds requiring only board approval and one legal notice in a newspaper. Now, they’re maxed out on bonded indebtedness and crying,
we’ve spent it all, give us some more!
The library would achieve their needed spending cuts quicker (and with fewer layoffs) by starting from the top down, rather than the bottom up.
What’s preventing the board from putting a referendum on the next ballot, if they think they have a valid need to present to the taxpayers?
From the September 9-15, 2009 issue