Another local institution closing

CohensIt’s been in Peoria 127 years, but this will be the last year for Cohen Furniture Company. The Journal Star reports that Cohen’s will be closing for good by the end of the year.

My wife and I have shopped at Cohen’s quite a bit, most recently getting our couch and our basement carpeting there. It’s always sad to see a local business close, especially one that has been a mainstay for over a century. Apparently, the current president wants to retire and no one is interested in buying the company. So another local business will quietly slip away.

It’s not mentioned in the article, but this will clearly also impact Peoria Heights where Cohen’s warehouse has been located since 1989.

One way to give city leaders your input

One Way SignIt’s been a while since the last public meeting, but the city is still interested in hearing your thoughts on reverting downtown streets back to two-way traffic. Another public meeting is scheduled for this Wednesday, September 20, at 6:30 p.m. in the Gateway Building on the riverfront.

I’ve been an advocate of this plan for some time, but especially since the reconfiguration of I-74. I contend one of the benefits would be easier access to downtown from the new interstate ramps and vice versa if the streets were converted to two-way. If you’re leaving, say, O’Brien Field by going north on Adams and you want to go east on I-74, you currently have to drive over 74, turn left on Spalding, left on Jefferson, left on Fayette, and finally left onto the entrance ramp. If Jefferson were two-way, you could avoid the run-around-the-block.

Overall, there’s simply not enough traffic volume downtown to warrant one-way streets, as the Heart of Peoria Plan and other feasibility studies have observed.

Fines for loud parties, underage drinking may rise

Following a couple of raging parties in the neighborhoods surrounding Bradley University, Second District Councilperson Barbara Van Auken promised to propose “a $1,000 fine for both the host(s) and the property owner if it’s owner-occupied.” That proposal will be presented to the City Council at tomorrow evening’s meeting.

The municipal code already has the following fines in place:

(a) A person who knowingly enters or remains in any house, building, yard or other premises, other than premises licensed to sell alcoholic liquor, under circumstances where the person knows or reasonably should know that alcoholic liquor is being illegally possessed or consumed by persons under the age of 21 years shall be guilty of a petty offense and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $200.00 nor more than $500.00.

(b) It is unlawful for a parent, legal guardian or other person to knowingly permit a person under the age of 18 years old in his or her custody to violate the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. Any person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be fined not less than $500.00.

The ordinance requested by Van Auken would add the following:

(c) Any owner or person in actual or constructive possession of a property, including, but not limited to, an occupant or tenant of property who suffers, allows, consents to, acquiesces by failure to prevent, or expressly assents or agrees to a violation of paragraph (a) of this section shall be guilty of a petty offense and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000.00.

It is hoped that this ordinance will motivate property owners and landlords to evict chronic disturbers of the peace by hitting them where it hurts — in their pocketbook. I wonder how property managers feel about this ordinance. I can tell you that homeowners and responsible renters in Bradley’s adjacent neighborhoods love it.

Hell freezes over: Journal Star runs pro-rail article

Two of them, actually. You can read them here and here. Kudos to the editors for publishing some pro-rail information for a change.

Steve Tarter, who I recently learned is a railfan, wrote both articles. The latter one even talks favorably about running a rail and trail side-by-side on the Kellar Branch. This idea had been suggested years ago, but was rejected by the Park District based on a “feasibility study” that was supposedly done showing it would be cost-prohibitive.

Funny thing, when asked to produce said feasibility study, the Park District was never able to provide a copy. Sharon Deckard of the Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation (IPRRF) asked for a copy at the time and never got one, and I asked for a copy about a year ago and was told the so-called “feasibility study” consisted of “engineering drawings” and a spreadsheet — a spreadsheet that the park district couldn’t currently locate. Huh.

It was suggested at the meeting that the IPRRF do its own feasibility study, and that may happen soon. I joked that all we really need to do is confidently assert that we’ve done one that shows the project is completely feasible. Then if the park district challenges us on it, we offer to show them our feasibility study once they show us theirs. Ha!

Seriously, though, one could get the impression from reading the article that commuter rail is the main reason IPRRF wants to save the Kellar Branch. But truth is, the main reason to keep the Kellar Branch is for hauling freight, not passenger rail. Freight service on the Kellar Branch line will allow rail-served businesses to be courted for Pioneer Park and Growth Cell Two, which would bring more jobs into Peoria.

Passenger rail could very likely be a future additional use of the tracks. But right now, as much as I love passenger rail, I’m going to have to agree with my readers (and disagree with IPRRF) that it’s probably not very realistic to have commuter rail in Peoria at this time, other than intercity transit.

What is feasible now? I’d like to see Amtrak service restored to Peoria. I’d even be happy with a diesel-powered trolley car that would run between Galesburg and Normal via Peoria to take passengers to those Amtrak stations, although I’d prefer a more direct route between Chicago and St. Louis, of course.