Daily Archives: May 5, 2006

City of Peoria, Kellar Branch

You be the judge: is this a news report or an editorial?

1 Comment

The Journal Star has posted a midday report on the Surface Transportation Board decision from two weeks ago (reported here on April 25).

The headline says “Rails staying on trail for at least 90 days.” I know reporters don’t write headlines. I’m sure the person who wrote it was looking for a clever turn of phrase. However, it reveals the newspaper’s bias — notice they already consider the Kellar Branch a trail. The rails, which have been there for over 100 years, are made to sound like an evicted tenant who refuses to leave his apartment.

If you read the whole story, you’ll notice a couple of other little biases. While they interview George Burrier, president of both the Recreational Trail Advocates (RTA) and Friends of the Rock Island Trail, and Bonnie Noble, executive director of the Peoria Park District, they don’t interview Carver Lumber Company. Isn’t that interesting?

They talk about the grants the Park District has had on hold for twelve years waiting to build the trail, but don’t mention the $55,000 Carver Lumber had to spend on additional transportation costs when the city broke their promise to provide uninterrupted rail service via Central Illinois Railway.

They talk about trail advocates (like the RTA) being unhappy, but don’t mention rail advocates (like the Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation) being thrilled.

In short, it’s an editorial masquerading (poorly) as an unbiased news report.

UPDATE 5/6/06: They’ve run a lengthier article in today’s paper that does interview Carver Lumber and has a different headline (“Trail delays drag on“). This article is much better than the original one in the “midday report.”

Blogosphere, Peoria County, Peoria Disposal Company

Whither goest the civic-minded?

4 Comments

Not too long ago, I was doing some research on the Richwoods Township annexation back in 1964. During the time leading up to the referendum, there was a lot of heated rhetoric, and when the vote came around, the citizens were split almost right down the middle. The annexation passed by a mere 336 votes.

Yet, when it was all over, I was struck by a comment made by one of the opposition leaders. He expressed his disappointment over the loss, but then he added that he was a civic-minded man and wanted to see Peoria succeed, so he would get behind the annexation and do what he could to make sure the transition went smoothly. He wanted what was best for Peoria. This man was a true statesman.

Compare that response to the hazardous waste landfill proponents after the county board denied PDC’s application for expansion:

  • Hazardous-waste enthusiast Bill Dennis said on his blog, “The NIMBY […] crowd think they won last night. I’ll let them savor their ‘victory.’ After the lawsuits start and the bills rack up […] and the unemployment claims are filed, I’ll try not to gloat about being right.”
  • County board member and expansion supporter Merle Widmer wrote similarly, “This highly Christian community denies they are of the NIMBY crowd. Good Christians are compassionate and willingly accept other people’s problems, they say. We’ll see. The businesses leaders of this community see why the closure of this disposal site could prevent waste creating companies from coming here like, say medical laboratories….”
  • A pro-expansion commenter on Bill’s blog added, “The Peoria County Board reacted in cowardice because they are politicians and their chief responsibility is to ensure that they get re-elected. Had more of them looked at the facts, and had the virility to make the right decision even though the vocal minority of the public wouldn’t like it, the vote would have been to approve by a good margin.”

You get the feeling from reading some of the blogs and comments that these proponents actually wish the county would lose an appeal, or PDC would lay off a bunch of workers, or some other ill-will, just so they can spitefully say “I told you so.” Where are the statesmen today who lose gracefully and wish the best for the community?

The only comment I could find that had a hint of graciousness was, in all places, the Journal Star’s editorial: “Though we endorsed the landfill’s expansion, with conditions, for the community’s sake we hope there is no reversal.”

If proponents are correct that a reversal would mean PDC could expand the landfill without any of the conditions or safeguards the county requested, including their offer not to add to the oldest part of the landfill, I would hope proponents wouldn’t really be wishing the worst on Peoria just because the vote didn’t go their way.