Back in May, Peoria’s Economic Development director Craig Hullinger asked District 150 to be a part of the Enterprise Zone for the Main Street Commons project, and I wrote this post in response. Craig, who is a really nice guy and very communicative, wrote me and we had an interesting e-mail exchange. He asked me if he could post it on his blog (did I mention he’s very communicative?), and I said that was fine with me, so here it is. I’m not sure why his post is dated September of 2008 because we didn’t have our discussion until just the last couple of months. Perhaps he just updated an old post.

Anyway, I was rereading it today, and now I have some more questions. For example, Craig says:

Any development is risky. The safest developments are on undeveloped land (green grass sites). It is easier to buy a large tract of land. Less likely to have costly environmental problems hidden underground. Urban redevelopment is always more difficult. It is harder to assemble the land – usually multiple owners. Older areas have more poverty and crime.

I think you can see that this is true by comparing the level of development in the suburban areas of Peoria versus the older areas. More development takes place in new areas. It is always a struggle to get investment in older areas. We try to equalize the difference between new and old with incentives.

Now look at this map of the current Enterprise Zone:

Notice the big red area up in the far north part of town? Up there where there are green grass sites? Where it is easier to buy a large tract of land? Where it is less likely to have costly environmental problems hidden underground? Up where they, in short, need no incentives?

Why is the Enterprise Zone up there?

And furthermore, doesn’t that just step all over the theory of “equaliz[ing] the difference between new and old with incentives”? If a developer can get the same incentives up where there’s a green field, doesn’t that kind of “equalization” work against redeveloping the older parts of town?

One more question, for the record. Craig said:

There is a good market. We hired the premier market research firm, Tracy Cross, to assess the market for new close into downtown housing. They said the market was strong, for creative class young professionals, but that renters lead the urban renaissance, and that the rents had to be about $1.00 a square foot. It is hard to build a quality brick building that will rent for that rate without incentives.

So, we can expect this development to be a “quality brick building” now that these incentives are in place? And that rents will be competitive? So noted. I’ll be referring back to this post when the construction materials are made public. When I asked at the public meeting what materials would be used, I was told they hadn’t decided yet.

Every year around July 4, area newspapers run articles on fireworks safety (like this one), including the reminder that nearly all fireworks are illegal in the state; and those that are legal are probably illegal in your city. And every year, hundreds of area residents light sparklers, shoot off bottle rockets, and set off firecrackers anyway.

Next to speed limits, the most blatantly disregarded laws are arguably those against fireworks. Where I used to live, one of my neighbors would set off roman candles right on the street. And he was a police officer.

Since the states surrounding the Land of Lincoln have fewer restrictions on fireworks, Illinoisans can easily get an arsenal of pyrotechnics — in Missouri, especially. In fact, there are huge retailers that sell nothing but fireworks, and part of their marketing is to encourage Illinois residents to get their explosives before crossing the border.

And that’s apparently just what Illinoisans do. Every July 3, both before and after the Park District’s big fireworks display in Glen Oak Park, there are all kinds of skyrockets going off in the surrounding neighborhoods. And every July 4, you can hear all kinds of firecrackers going off until well into the evening. There seems to be a tacit consensus among residents that, as long as you’re not keeping your neighbors up at night, we’re not going to snitch on you.

After all, it is ironic that fireworks are iconic of American independence and freedom, yet are illegal. Perhaps that cognitive dissonance is what makes people so accepting of fireworks scofflaws. On the other hand, some will point to those who have been seriously injured or killed by fireworks as a justification for outlawing them. Fair enough. But generally speaking, injuries and death (and property damage, for that matter) occur because people are misusing fireworks (for example, shooting them off inside a house underneath the door to a fraternity brother’s room), and if we outlawed everything that could lead to injury or death if misused, we’d have to outlaw a whole lot of things, starting with bathtubs.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m not advocating breaking the law. I’m just acknowledging reality. On Independence Day, people are going to shoot off fireworks. They do it every year, despite media reminders that it’s illegal.

That said, have a fun and safe Fourth of July holiday weekend! I would encourage you all to enjoy legal fireworks displays at Glen Oak Park tonight and the Peoria Riverfront tomorrow. They’re better than anything you can buy at that big retailer in Missouri anyway.

Happy birthday, America!

I attended a quasi-public meeting Tuesday night regarding the proposed Main Street Commons project that is slated to go in where the old Walgreen’s is at the corner of Main and Bourland.

The meeting was held at the PeoriaNEXT building (which incidentally has doors that face Main Street, but they’re all locked; all pedestrians have to walk around the back of the building — by the parking lot — to enter the building, which is symbolic of the lip-service Peoria gives to pedestrians). Pat Landes and Kimberly Smith from the Planning and Growth Department were there, along with Thomas Harrington and Shawn Luesse representing the developers, and second district council person Barbara Van Auken theoretically representing the district, although she appeared to be only representing the University East neighborhood Tuesday night.

The proposed project is due to go before the Zoning Commission on Thursday at 3:00. Here’s the information that has been submitted.

There’s a lot to like about the project. It hides most of the parking in a ground-floor garage under the building. It includes retail shops on Main and Bourland. They’ve pledged to adhere to the approved building materials outlined in the code, although they apparently haven’t decided which materials they will be using.

But there are ten variances they are requesting from the Zoning Commission, and ultimately, the City Council. Many of them are minor. A few of them are troublesome:

• Fulfilling open space requirement by demolishing a home on the corner of Bourland and Russell and leaving it as a vacant lot (albeit landscaped). (This actually involves a couple variance requests.) Instead, they should simply reduce the size of the building. This would also remove the need for another variance to approve a longer building than allowed by code. It would preserve a single-family home on the corner, thus providing a better transition to the neighborhood and removing the need for a street wall.
• Speaking of street walls, another variance requests approval for a street fence instead of a street wall. While this seems relatively innocuous, it continues a precedent trending toward removal of the street wall requirement completely. That’s not a good thing. Street walls serve several functions, one of which is to help prevent exactly what’s going on here — leaving an entire corner vacant.
• The code requires that “no window may face or direct views toward a common lot line.” The developers want this waived “to allow living room windows on the west elevation of the south building, for proposed units on the second through fifth floor, (overlooking the Jimmy John’s parking lot) to be located 7′-4″ behind the common lot line.” The concern here is that, eventually, we hope that the Jimmy Johns property will be redeveloped. It currently has a one-story building with a parking lot in front (suburban siting), so overlooking the parking lot is not a problem. But what happens when that lot is redeveloped? Will the Main Street Commons development negatively impact efforts to redevelop the Jimmy Johns property? Keep in mind that the code will require that any redevelopment of Jimmy Johns’ property be a multi-story building sited next to the street and abut the Main Street Commons property. Will this cause problems from a fire-fighting standpoint? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer to the question of its impact on future development because it was disallowed by Councilperson Van Auken at the meeting; the question was “theoretical” and besides, I’m not an immediate neighbor to the project. This kind of myopic thinking (ignoring both the regional impact of projects as well as the future implications of developments) is most unfortunate from a sitting council person, but not particularly surprising.

On a positive note, it’s great to see mixed-use development being proposed for Main Street. Having residents will provide more natural surveillance of the surrounding streets, and will provide a larger market for the retail shops that will go in on the ground floor. Overall, this is the kind of development we want to see. My only caution would be to consider the unintended consequences of variances to the code; as Councilman Sandberg pointed out at the meeting, the developers already know they will get 100% occupancy, so they’re just trying to maximize profits at this point. There’s no reason they can’t meet the requirements of the code, especially on the points above. The Zoning Commission and City Council should seriously consider enforcing the code at these points for the long-term good of the city.

UPDATE: It passed the Zoning Commission with next to no deliberation. Marj Klise was the only “no” vote. One of the commissioners said that provisions in the Land Development Code were “open to interpretation” — which is to say, meaningless. That was enlightening. Another commissioner said he was all for it because of all the revenue it’s going to bring to the city at a time when the city is facing a $10 million deficit. Too bad he evidently wasn’t aware that this project has been added to the Enterprise Zone and is getting its sales and property taxes abated… and that the City is asking the state to extend the Enterprise Zone past the 2013 expiration date. This project isn’t actually going to bring any revenue into the City, but it’s going to make a whole lot of money for the developers!

Regarding the global economic crisis:

We must not revert to isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism… Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence is another possible mistake. True, the state’s increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent… In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive….

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.

Who is warning the world of the dangers of statism?

UPDATE: Commenter “Time for a Change” wins the challenge. It was indeed Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, speaking at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 28, 2009. After stating (as quoted above), “In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive,” he added, “This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

The city’s solid waste removal contract with Waste Management expires at the end of this year. This contract has been in place since about 1992. Now, if you’re just an average person, you might think that the city had plenty of time to start the process of rebidding this contract. After all, they knew when it was due to expire, and they know how long it takes to negotiate contracts such as these, so logically they should have been able to work backwards from the deadline to determine a time line for the rebidding process.

But they didn’t do that. No, here it is June 2009, six months before the end of the contract, and they’re just starting the year-long process. Naturally, they are requesting an extension to the existing contract that has been in place for 17 years already to allow them extra time to negotiate a new contract. That request was on last week’s (June 23) agenda, but was deferred for a month.

Meanwhile, they managed to engage a consultant to get some advice on rebidding the contract. I don’t know exactly how city departments are allowed to spend their budget, but it seems to me that every other consultant that has been hired by the city had to be approved by the council; this consultant contract never came before the council. However, it must be no big deal because the council didn’t seem to care.

The consultant made a bunch of recommendations on how the city can lower the cost of waste removal. Of course, all those suggestions mean worse service for residents. For instance, they’re recommending that everyone be provided a 90-gallon tote, and that all other garbage containers be outlawed. You wouldn’t be able to buy your own tote, of course — you’d have to essentially rent it from the disposal company. And they want to do away with alley collection of garbage, even though that’s one of the reasons alleys exist, and many older neighborhoods were designed for garbage collection from the alleys, not from the curb.

To their credit, the city council has so far been pretty adamant about keeping the alley collection of garbage, but city staff is trying to convince them to change their minds. They want to big the contract with all-curbside pickup as an option so the council can see how must more expensive it is to include alley collection. There’s only one reason for splitting out these costs: to try to persuade change. One wonders why it’s more expensive to run a truck down an alley rather than a parallel street 130 feet away. Waste Management says their trucks are too big for our alleys (solution: use smaller trucks). City staff says the heavy trucks damage the alley surfaces (question: wouldn’t moving the trucks to the streets just move the damage to the streets as well? Or is this an admission that alleys are poorly maintained in the city?).

The consultant is also suggesting that the city limit or do away with picking up anything that doesn’t fit inside one of the recommended 90-gallon totes. So, whereas now you can throw away that old couch or cabinet (what they call “bulky waste”) — the consultant says that should stop, be reduced to just once or twice a year, or charged an extra fee, such as $10 or $15 per item.

The biggest issue, however, is going to be how to include universal recycling. There is a lot of popular support for alleyside/curbside recycling as part of the base contract. Currently, anyone who wants to recycle has to pay extra and are billed directly by the hauler. That means that a household like mine that recycles pays three times for garbage service: once on our property taxes, once on our water bill, and once directly to Waste Management. Most households are not willing to pay three times for garbage hauling, so they just throw all their recyclables away in the regular trash. In other words, our current system incentivizes people not to recycle. That needs to be changed.

However, that will cost more money. So the question becomes how to pay for such service. One idea is to do the opposite of what we’re doing now: make recycling pickup free, but charge a fee for regular garbage. The way they do this in Morton is by selling trash stickers. However, in a more urban area, there is concern that this might lead to more illegal dumping or other unsanitary conditions as some people attempt to avoid the fee. So another idea is to make all collections every-other week. Regular garbage would be picked up on odd weeks, and recycling would be picked up on even weeks, for instance.

One other change that has been recommended in order to save money is switching to a sticker system for yard waste. Right now, unlimited yard waste disposal is included in the base contract. The cost of that service could be offset or possibly covered completely by charging residents a fee per bag of yard waste. On the other hand, this would be yet another reduction in services city residents already enjoy and for which they already pay twice.

Who would have thought garbage could be so complicated?

The Cato Institute, a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C., takes a look at the President’s health care town hall meeting that was broadcast on ABC recently:

With the nationalization of some of our largest companies, the recently-passed Waxman-Markey bill, and Obama’s health care proposal, it sounds like we’re well on our way to socialism in America, and I’m not throwing that term out lightly. How else can it be described?

Here are some other things that have happened in the world despite the recent deaths of Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Michael Jackson:

• The House of Representatives narrowly passed (219-212) the Waxman-Markey bill, also known as the “Climate Change bill” or “Global Warming bill,” which will establish a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. This will raise the cost of carbon-based fuels, which means annual energy costs for Americans will rise. Everyone agrees that costs will rise; they just disagree over how much. Estimates range from $98 extra per year to over $4,300 extra per year for an average household. Nevertheless, President Obama claims it will be good for the country’s economy — even going so far as to claim that it will change the business cycle:
  

  I have often talked about the need to build a new foundation for economic growth so that we do not return to the endless cycle of bubble and bust that led us to this recession. Clean energy and the jobs it creates will be absolutely critical to this new foundation.

• There has been a coup in Honduras. President Manuel Zelaya was forced out of the country by the military:
  

  Mr Zelaya campaigned for office on a law and order ticket but, Reuters news agency reports, it remains a major drug-trafficking transit point, overrun by street gangs and violent crime. Limited to a single four-year term in office under the current constitution, he was accused of seeking to change the law to allow him to stand for a second term.

• Eight British Embassy employees were arrested in Iran “for their alleged involvement in post-election protests.” The British foreign secretary denies any involvement: “The idea that the British embassy is somehow behind the demonstrations and protests that have been taking place in Tehran in recent weeks is wholly without foundation.” Click here for a video report from the BBC.

Kudos to Billy Dennis for continuing to cover the Iranian crisis.

Sources confirm that Michael Jackson is still dead. Rumors have surfaced that life is continuing for the rest of the world.

The Journal Star is reporting that taxes and/or fees will have to be raised to plug the deficit, according to Mayor Ardis:

Ardis didn’t say which revenue will be increased, other than to say it could be a combination of things, such as a possible sales tax increase or a water utility fee…. The mayor did say it was unlikely the city’s portion of the property tax will be increased, citing other government bodies such as District 150 that have already increased their tax rate. “It would be the absolute last thing we’ll look at,” Ardis said. “(The property tax) is tapped.”

Wait a minute. The reason we can’t raise the property tax is because other taxing bodies have “already increased their tax rate”? That makes absolutely no sense, but let’s just accept it for the sake of argument. Why then should we consider raising the sales tax, considering the county just raised their tax rate? Why doesn’t the same “logic” apply?

And if the city’s revenue-producing abilities are limited because other taxing bodies are raising their rates, then the first thing we need to do is stop giving any of our revenue to those other taxing bodies. For instance, the city should immediately stop giving any tax money to the park district or the school district. Does that mean that there will be no programming on the riverfront? Tough! Does that mean that district 150 won’t get city-provided crossing guards? Sorry! The city needs to use all its available revenue to provide its own core services, not services for other taxing bodies.

Frankly, the mayor’s comments should come as no surprise. A couple council meetings ago, council members were given a packet of information available for download from the city’s website about the budget. Included was this document outlining possible cuts and revenue increases. In fact, since we have that info, here’s what I’d like to do:

I’d like you to pretend you’re a city council member. (You should be feeling a power trip right about now; if you don’t, you’re not pretending right.) Okay, council person? Now, you have to plug a $10 million structural budget deficit by either cutting costs, increasing revenues, or a combination of both.

How would you do it?

You can use the options provided in the aforementioned report, or add your own. It has to be realistic (so, for example, “print money out of thin air like the Federal Reserve” is not acceptable). Also, it has to be a long-term solution because this is a structural deficit. Short-term stop-gap measures don’t count.

Just to make things easier, here’s a summary of options outlined in the report:

INCOME OPTIONS

• Property Tax — Each $.01 added to the levy raises $200,000. The owner of a $200,000 house would pay $6.60 more in property taxes annually per penny.
• Water Utility Tax or Franchise Fee — A 5% utility tax or franchise fee placed on the use of water would yield approximately $1,200,000 each year.
• Sales Tax — An additional .25% increase in the home rule sales tax would bring in an estimated $3,850,000 each year.
• Package Liquor Tax — 2% tax on package liquor would raise about $700,000 annually.
• Parking Tickets — If the $10 fine was raised to $15, an additional $90,000 in revenue annually.
• Garbage Fee — Peoria residential properties pay $6 each month in garbage fees. For every dollar the monthly rate is raised, the City would gain an additional $336,000 annually.
• Motor Fuel Tax — The City currently collects $.02 per gallon of fuel sold. For every penny added, approximately an additional $400,000 in revenue.
• Stormwater Utility Fee — Rough estimates indicate charging $2.00 per month per “residential unit” would generate about $1.2 million.

COST-CUTTING OPTIONS

• Wage Adjustment — Cutting the salary increases of staff from 4.75% (union) and 3.5% (management) to 2.5% across the board would save $1,839,113.64. Cutting them to 1% would save $3,088,880.53.
• Voluntary Separation Initiative — No amount given, but the idea would be to offer early retirement to long-time employees who make high salaries, thus reducing the total payroll.
• Service Cuts/Layoffs — Again, no amount given, since it would depend on which services the city decided to cut. What services do you think should be eliminated? We may be able to find out how much such a cut would save.
• Medical Premium Increase — If the rate at which employees participated in the base premium cost were raised by 5% for all types of coverage, the City would save an estimated $811,000 in FY2010, based on 2009 premium costs. A family membership in the PPO would cost the employee $408.92 each month vs. the current rate of $272.61.
• Reduce Capital Budget — For FY2009, Council approved a Community Investment Plan that funded $21,434,873 worth of projects. Of that amount, only $8,908,895 was in discretionary spending (funding sources not strictly limited to capital projects). This amount represented only 55% of the project funding ($17M) identified by staff and Council.
• Use of HRA Taxes — The primary and obligated use of the proceeds of the Hotel-Restaurant-Amusement Tax is to pay down the Civic Center bonds. Annually, any revenue remaining after bond payments is apportioned by agreement to the Civic Center Authority, Peoria Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, ArtsPartners and other community organizations. Many communities use their HRA taxes to support operating or capital projects.

Okay, you have the raw data. Now find $10 million. On your marks. Get set. Go!

Nope, it’s not because you lose the signal. It’s because the local television stations have failed to upgrade a critical piece of equipment in their signal path: the inserter. An inserter is the thing that allows TV stations to put their logo (”bug”) and little severe-weather map in the corner of your screen, and put a text crawl at the bottom of the screen. If the inserter isn’t upgraded to high-definition, guess what? Whenever they use it, it downgrades the picture to standard-definition.

Right now, there’s a severe thunderstorm watch for several counties in the area. So the evening news on channel 19 (which includes several tributes to Michael Jackson) is in standard definition. Any other programs that are on during the watch will also be downgraded. And it’s not just channel 19. I haven’t checked lately, but not long ago when I was watching David Letterman, the opening would pop down to standard def while the channel 31 logo appeared on the screen, then pop back up to high def when the bug disappeared.

My guess is that the TV engineers would really like to get one of these little babies, but the bean counters at corporate aren’t willing to shell out the bucks for it (they can run upwards of $8,000 — not an unusual price for broadcast equipment). So, all the benefits of the government-mandated conversion to HDTV go in the toilet whenever the station puts its logo on screen.

Hey, local TV stations: Buy an HD inserter already. Are you trying to drive your few remaining viewers away?