Chronicle passes one year mark

On April 15, 2005, I started a blog on Blog*spot called “Summers in Peoria.”  Over the past year, that has turned into The Peoria Chronicle, with my own domain name and WordPress interface.

My thanks to everyone who reads my little online magazine of news and commentary on our fair city of Peoria.  I enjoy so much the comments and discussions, and yes, even the arguments we’ve had over the past year.

I never promised I’d do this forever, but I’m still having fun, so I think I’ll keep at it for a while longer.  Thanks again for reading.

And another thing about yesterday’s editorial . . .

The Journal Star still hasn’t put yesterday’s editorial on their website where everyone can read it. I don’t blame them. It was so bad I’d want to just forget the whole thing, too, if I were they.

Still, I subscribe to the paper, so I have a copy of it, and I just remembered another ridiculous statement of theirs I failed to mention in my earlier post:

Now State Sen. George Shadid says he’ll ask the governor not to sign legislation he sponsored to help District 150 pay for new schools. [ . . . ] Shadid must surely recognize it’s not the School Board or superintendent he’s attempting to punish, but Peoria’s children. His bill and this issue go way beyond just this one school.

The bill to which they are referring is SB 2477 which lets the Public Building Commission issue bonds for school construction — in Peoria only, and only through the year 2011. So when the editorial board says this bill goes “way beyond just this one school,” remember that it only applies to Peoria’s school district, which is currently planning to build a total of six schools within the next five years. “Way beyond” seems a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think?

But on to their main point. What would happen if the governor didn’t sign this bill? Would it punish Peoria’s children, as the Journal Star contends?

In a word, no. For one thing, their statement assumes a new building is so desperately needed that the denial of it is considered punishment. That contention hasn’t been proven.

But besides that, the school district could still issue bonds for school construction without this bill — they’d just have to get the voters’ okay via a referendum. Isn’t that awful? Imagine! Having to (gasp!) communicate to the public and (*wheeze*) persuade the public to invest in such a plan. Horrors! Funny, I sense a trend here . . . .

I get the impression that the Journal Star editorial board has joined the school and park boards in believing the public is too stupid or too bothersome and must be avoided at all costs. It’s a shame they think so little of us, considering we’re the ones who will be paying off this construction through our property taxes.

Sen. Shadid is doing the right thing by not letting the school board continue to leave the public in the dark. Why a newspaper would advocate a governmental body keeping the public in the dark is beyond me — it seems to fly in the face of their mission.

But what do I know? I’m just one of the 113,000 stupid taxpayers in Peoria.

Happy Birthday, Mom

Today is my mother’s birthday. I thought I would take this opportunity to share one of my favorite poems, written by a son to his mother. It’s called “The Lanyard,” and it was penned by U.S. Poet Laureate Billy Collins. I heard him recite this poem right here in Peoria at Bradley University. I myself never made a lanyard at camp, but I certainly made my share of worthless little trinkets that I gave to my mother when I was younger, so perhaps the lanyard spoken of in this poem can be considered metaphorical.

The Lanyard
by Billy Collins

The other day I was ricocheting slowly
off the blue walls of this room,
moving as if underwater from typewriter to piano,
from bookshelf to an envelope lying on the floor,
when I found myself in the L section of the dictionary
where my eyes fell upon the word lanyard.

No cookie nibbled by a French novelist
could send one into the past more suddenly—
a past where I sat at a workbench at a camp
by a deep Adirondack lake
learning how to braid long thin plastic strips
into a lanyard, a gift for my mother.

I had never seen anyone use a lanyard
or wear one, if that’s what you did with them,
but that did not keep me from crossing
strand over strand again and again
until I had made a boxy
red and white lanyard for my mother.

She gave me life and milk from her breasts,
and I gave her a lanyard.
She nursed me in many a sick room,
lifted spoons of medicine to my lips,
laid cold face-cloths on my forehead,
and then led me out into the airy light

and taught me to walk and swim,
and I, in turn, presented her with a lanyard.
Here are thousands of meals, she said,
and here is clothing and a good education.
And here is your lanyard, I replied,
which I made with a little help from a counselor.

Here is a breathing body and a beating heart,
strong legs, bones and teeth,
and two clear eyes to read the world, she whispered,
and here, I said, is the lanyard I made at camp.
And here, I wish to say to her now,
is a smaller gift—not the worn truth

that you can never repay your mother,
but the rueful admission that when she took
the two-tone lanyard from my hand,
I was as sure as a boy could be
that this useless, worthless thing I wove
out of boredom would be enough to make us even.

Thanks, Mom, and happy birthday.

Journal Star questions sincerity of neighbors/parents, but not school/park boards

If there was ever any doubt that the paper’s editorial board is out of touch with the feelings of most Peorians, look no further than today’s paper for proof. The Journal Star has published today one of the most ridiculous and obtuse editorials I’ve ever read (and they’ve had some doozies).

The editorial is about the school siting controversy in the east bluff. The editorial is one large straw man that basically goes like this: The school board wants to help the children in the east bluff by investing $15 million in a new school, but the foolish NIMBY neighbors are trying to kill the district’s plans to help the children and make said investment; thus, the east bluff deserves to be abandoned and the money invested in a different part of town.

Were that the case, it would be easy to lambaste the neighbors for short-sighted pettiness. But the paper’s argument is a sham. To borrow the phrasing of the editorial writers, “This [editorial] has proved so disappointing on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to start.”

The Journal Star says:

When Peoria school and park district officials first unveiled their plans in late March, they waxed enthusiastic about spending $15 million on a state-of-the-art school [ . . . ] on an East Bluff that could use the investment. They thought — silly them — that they were doing something positive for the neighborhood and its children.

I guess I’ll start by stating the obvious: if the school board wants to “[do] something positive for the neighborhood and its children,” then perhaps they should try communicating with the neighbors and finding out their needs and desires instead of working behind closed doors to solve a “problem” that may not be the neighborhood’s biggest concern.

Make no mistake about it, this plan to replace school buildings did not originate with the neighborhoods. There was no groundswell of concern over the age or alleged disrepair of the buildings. In fact, the neighbors are more concerned about safety, academic achievement, and hot lunches that don’t make their children sick. No, this was a budget issue, not a response to neighborhood needs.

The Master Facility Planning Committee was established “to conduct a capacity and utilization analysis of District 150’s school buildings for use in providing guidance to the District in meeting the recommendations of the Structural Budget Imbalance (“SBI”) Task Force and maintaining and improving the District’s priority status on the 2003 State school construction grant list.” The “SBI” was established to identify $19 million in “budget savings, revenue enhancement and/or resource reallocations,” according to the April 19, 2005 school board minutes.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but the paper is making it sound like this was done solely for the purpose of “investing” in the children of the older parts of town — that the board was trying to do a “good deed.” The truth is, the school board wants to save money because they’re on the state’s financial watch list. The board believes that by shuttering 11 schools and building 6 new ones (consolidation and replacement), they can save money on maintenance and administrative costs. Now, one could make the case (and the district tries to) that these new buildings will, as an added bonus, also be a better learning environment for the children. But you can bet if there were no perceived cost savings involved, the district wouldn’t even be considering “investing” in the east bluff.

The Journal Star says this “investment” came about because of “intergovernmental cooperation of a kind all too rare in central Illinois.” This is the same paper that’s already reported that the Park Board broke the law by reaching that intergovernmental agreement in executive session, away from public scrutiny. Would that such back-door deals were indeed “all too rare.”

And that’s the point. The controversy really isn’t over the school board’s plans to replace schools — it’s over the secrecy with which the board’s plans have been executed. The Journal Star should know that. For them to say — not once, but twice — that the school board ought to abandon the east bluff because the neighbors complained about these secret plans is unreasonable and irresponsible.

And disingenuous. The paper criticizes Third-District Councilman Bob Manning for trying to use the city’s power to force the school board to listen to the neighborhood’s concerns (how dare he!). They complain that it looks to them as if he’s trying to “kill the project.” Yet, the Journal Star itself filed a complaint with the attorney general against the Park District for their illegal closed-session meeting where the intergovernmental agreement was forged. The attorney general could (although it’s admittedly unlikely) decide to reverse the Park Board’s decision as a result of their unlawful actions. So, isn’t the Journal Star complicit in the attempt to “kill the project”?

The Journal Star says they “don’t question the sincerity of school officials in trying to make Peoria a better city.” Who is? Again, this is a straw man. Neither Manning nor the neighbors are complaining about the board’s motives, but their actions. You can’t keep the public in the dark, propose a controversial school siting, threaten to take people’s property via eminent domain, then feign shock that anyone would be upset about it.

Unlike the Journal Star, I also don’t question the sincerity of East Bluff parents and their city councilman in trying to make Peoria a better city and the East Bluff a better neighborhood. I guess the paper thinks a lame-duck school board working with a secretive park board knows better than parents and residents what’s best for their neighborhood and school.

While the newspaper pines for statesmanship, the residents of Peoria long for a rival newspaper capable of expressing an informed, evenhanded, and cogent argument.

Another neighborhood rumored to be giving in

I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of this, but I’ve heard the Arbor District Neighborhood Association is considering dissolution. No decision has been made yet. The proposal is, once the neighborhood association is dissolved, the bulk of the neighborhood would join the Moss-Bradley neighborhood association, with a small portion joining the Uplands Residential Association.

I can only guess that the reasoning behind this is the theory that there is strength in numbers, and that perhaps being part of a larger association will allow them to pull more weight. But I can tell you what message it would send to Bradley University: “We give up.”

Let me ask you this: which sounds greedier, to ask for a whole pie or a piece of pie? Right now the Arbor District is a whole pie, and Bradley is just asking for a piece of it (Maplewood to the alley). If it joins Moss-Bradley, then the whole Arbor District becomes just a piece of the Moss-Bradley pie. It will make it easier for the university to take over more and more of the Arbor District. They’re guaranteed to lose ground, literally.

I hope the neighbors in the Arbor District realize this is plan of sure defeat, and decide not to do it.

Neighbors aren’t fighting, school district two properties closer to goal

It looks like the neighbors of Glen Oak Park are happy with the money they’re getting from the school district.  Another two houses have been sold, one of them for $120,000 — about $30,000 over the fair market value of the home.  I guess you could say the district made an offer they couldn’t refuse.  When you have the hammer of eminent domain hanging over your head, the smart thing to do is take the money and run, if you get a good enough offer.

TransPORT taking over old Cat foundry

I found this report encouraging, especially after hearing Mr. Ady’s presentation at the council meeting Tuesday night.  One of the things he mentioned was the lack of buildings that can be used to lure manufacturing companies to Peoria county/city.  Now it looks as though the port district, or TransPORT, has quite a bit of building space to market — the old Mapleton Cat foundry.  It’s rail-served, near the river, and reasonably close to an interstate (though not ideal on that count).  This could be a great opportunity for Peoria to pull in some good-paying industry jobs.

District 150’s Facilities Plan based on subjective, inconsistent data

I was reading through District 150’s Master Facilities Planning Committee Final Recommendations, and I discovered their decisions are determined by the outcome of a facilities analysis they did. Here’s how they did it:

First, they split up the committee into four subcommittees based on high school attendance area. The four subcommittees were:

  • Manual – Dave Ryon, Steve Morris, & Lillie Foreman
  • Peoria High – Ed Berry, Guy Cahill, Mary Spangler
  • Woodruff – Dave Henebry, Cindy Fischer, Thea Robinson
  • Richwoods – Ray Lees, Mary Ardapple, Herschel Hannah

Then, the report states:

The committee decided to evaluate each facility based on their respective attributes relating to several primary issues: 1) Health-Life-Safety, 2) Operational Costs and 3) Educational Programs. This assessment was then followed by tours of each school in the District. The Committee was divided into four groups to visit schools in each of the four high school feeder areas. The results of the preliminary analysis were then reevaluated and modified based on on-site observations of existing conditions.

So, at the end of the report, you find three spreadsheets with the “raw data” of their scores. Each of those “primary issues” had several factors the committee members had to evaluate. For example, under “Health-Life-Safety,” some of the factors included site size, building size, building age, building structure, hazard protection, etc.

However, what I didn’t find was any objective basis for the scores they assigned.

For example, on the “Health-Life-Safety” spreadsheet, they have to give a score for the age of the building. One would expect this would have some sort of clear-cut, objective standard — maybe “5” for 25 years old or newer, “4” for 25-50 years old, etc. It’s almost that consistent, but there are a few anomalies. It appears that any building built before 1940 received a “1” — except for Woodruff High School, which got a “2,” even though it was built in 1936, the same year as Von Steuben Middle School, which received a “1.” All the schools built between 1941 and 1979 received a “2,” except for Richwoods and Manual. Richwoods (1955) got a “3,” and Manual (1961) inexplicably got a “4.” If there isn’t consistency in this, the most objective category on the list, how are we to evaluate their scores on the truly subjective categories, such as “healthfulness of lighting”?

Another curiosity is the score given for “Energy and Efficiency” of the building, systems, and equipment. Every primary, middle, and high school in Peoria got a “1” in these categories except for two: Glen Oak School got a “3” and Lincoln got a “5.” Are we really to believe that Charter Oak (built in 1979) and Irving school (built in 1898) have exactly the same (low) efficiency rating?

Remember, these scores and others like them form the basis of the district’s $120,000,000 building plan decision. Would you base a financial decision that large on these measurements?

It’s also worth noting that, given the information we have in this facilities report, it doesn’t appear that any experts were called in — for instance, an architect, or fire marshal, or HVAC specialist like Energy Pro Heating & Cooling — so one wonders again on what basis the committee assigned scores to things like “flexibility of building,” or “hazard protection,” or “healthfulness of HVAC.” In other words, they’re giving their opinion on several items for which they don’t have the necessary expertise. I could just as easily fill out these forms with my own opinions and they would be as valid (except on those items that deal with educational issues, on which they are in fact experts). They should have consulted actual experts such as Sitton Mechanical for these.

Yet, based on this “analysis,” the report confidently concludes (emphasis mine): “The District has or will soon have the necessary match of funds derived both from available restricted reserves and the sale of a health-life-safety bond (for the replacement of a minimum of two and as many as six buildings the cost of which to remediate is greater than the cost of replacement).”

The report gives no justification for the statement in bold.

Nowhere in the report do they give a breakdown of what it would cost to renovate/expand the current buildings versus what it would cost to do a new construction (including acquisition, demolition, legal, and other hidden costs). They also didn’t state how they would protect construction workers who are injured in scaffolding accidents. There’s no feasibility study. All they’ve really done is identified which schools they feel (subjectively) are in greatest need of repair. That’s no basis upon which to start tearing down schools and building new ones on different sites.

It’s easy to see why the school district is on the state’s financial watch list when it makes big-budget decisions on such scanty analysis. The school board should throw out this committee’s report and try again, this time with some objective measurements and a real feasibility study. Oh, and community involvement.

In fact, maybe they could learn something from this report by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Among many other valuable pieces of information, it includes this warning that the district is already learning the hard way: “A study conducted behind closed doors does not consider all viewpoints or build trust and support from within the community.”