Funniest Headline of the Year

I hope this doesn’t appear in the print edition like this:

Scary Headline

In case you can’t see the image: the headline says “Most voters say governor should live.” The subhead says, “63 percent say it’s ‘very important’ or ‘somewhat important.'”

Well, it’s gratifying to know that most voters say the governor should live, but I’m a bit concerned about the 37% who don’t think it’s even “somewhat important.”

I can’t tell you how confused and appalled I was before realizing that this story was about the governor living in Springfield; not about the governor living in general. Once I figured it out, I couldn’t stop laughing. The headline isn’t as funny by itself, but coupled with the subhead, it cracks me up every time!

Did Hinton act without authority?

As many commenters have pointed out, there seems to be a controversy brewing over how District 150’s counterproposal was handled, especially by the district, but to some extent by the city.

First, the Journal Star reported on Friday that “Hinton told [school] board members about the proposals before he delivered them [to Mayor Ardis], but they all declined comment Thursday. Many said they looked at a draft document and didn’t feel comfortable discussing it.”

As one of my readers pointed out, “Final authority for all matters concerning the District lies with the Board of Education,” according to District 150’s Board of Education Policy Manual. So one wonders why Hinton is giving the board a draft document, then presenting it to the city as the school board’s official counterproposal before the board even has a chance to discuss it.

One story I heard through the grapevine (so this is all hearsay) is that Clare Jellick of the Journal Star actually got a copy of the district’s counterproposal on Wednesday (no one will admit to leaking it), and so Hinton hurriedly delivered it to the city on Thursday afternoon. Supposedly he didn’t want city officials to learn about it by reading it in the paper Friday morning. But that just sounds odd to me, for some reason. Hinton’s been around a while. Surely he knows he could have just told Jellick that it was a “work in progress” and said he couldn’t comment on it until the board had a chance to discuss it, right? It’s not like this guy has never worked with the media before.

There seem to be two possibilities: (1) Hinton acted completely on his own in presenting this draft document to Mayor Ardis, in which case the board could declare the proposal void and come up with a new, board-approved proposal to present to the city; or (2) the board approved this document, but not in a public forum — in which case I’m pretty sure that’s a violation of the Open Meetings Act — and Hinton accidentally acted on it before the board legally approved it. Either way, one would think Hinton would get some sort of reprimand for acting without authority.

Moving on to the city…. On Friday, the Journal Star said, “Councilman Bob Manning said internal talks [on the proposal from District 150] likely won’t start until next week.” But then, at 11 a.m. Friday, there was a press conference where the Mayor and Councilman Manning announced the city was rejecting the offer and would not offer any further counterproposals. That was a quick change of plans.

“First District Councilman Clyde Gulley said he didn’t understand why the City Council didn’t discuss the proposals Thursday night, when it was already gathered for a budget meeting,” the Journal Star reported today.

Now, I personally don’t see this as being that big of a deal. This is a third-district issue and up to Manning’s discretion if he wants to pursue it further. It’s never been brought before the council, and there’s no law saying Manning has to pursue this or get council approval to abandon the idea. The $500,000 Manning was proposing giving to the school for land acquisition would have come out of money earmarked for third-district projects, but had not been formally proposed to the council yet. If Manning decides to drop the issue and not bring a proposal before the council for a vote, then that’s his prerogative.

Based on the proposal he received, I’m sure Manning saw no other option than to end negotiations. The district’s counterproposal wasn’t any different than what they’ve been pursuing all along; one would be hard-pressed to find any kind of compromise in their counteroffer. The district essentially asked for three times as much money as they were offered by the city and a larger site. Manning had already offered all the money he had to offer, so he has no wiggle room to come back with a counteroffer on funding.

Worse, the district knows full well that the city has only been pursuing this explicitly because they don’t want the new school built at Glen Oak Park. So why is one of the counteroffers from the district to give the city the old Glen Oak building in exchange for $500,000 for property acquisition at the park site? Talk about a slap in the face! Hello — if the city were willing to consider putting the school in the park, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. How could Manning conclude anything other than that the district isn’t really interested in trying to find a workable solution?

Trial date set for Park District’s Open Meetings Act violation

Park District LogoWhen the Peoria Park District (PPD) met in executive session to discuss partnering with District 150 on a new location for a school building for the Woodruff attendance area, they violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Only if they were discussing a sale price for land could they make such plans away from the public eye. That’s the gist of the suit being brought against the PPD by neighborhood activists Karrie Alms and Sarah Partridge.

Alms reports that their attorney recently went before Peoria County Chief Judge John Barra “to see if our original complaint could be amended to capture the new admissions of the PPD deleting the tapes from the March 8, 2006 PPD Executive Board Meeting. Judge Barra moved that our complaint was so amended. In addition, a trial date has been set for 7 December 2006.”

Their attorney is William Shay of Howard & Howard. He says the deletion of the March 8 closed session tape is a separate violation of the OMA; the Act states that the tape must be retained for at least 18 months after the meeting.

There’s not a lot of litigation over OMA violations, Shay said, because there’s not much in it for the complainant. Typically, by the time one of these cases makes it through the courts, it’s a moot point because either the public body has subsequently ratified any questionable actions in open session, or the plans have already been carried out (for instance, in this case, it could be decided after the school district has already broken ground).

If the Park District is found guilty of violating the OMA, Alms and Partridge could be awarded their attorneys fees, but that’s it for damages. As far as what relief they can get from a successful suit, they are asking for three things: (a) declaration that the PPD did, in fact, violate the OMA, (b) admonishment by the judge for said violation, and (c) prohibition of the PPD from having any further discussions with District 150 regarding sharing Glen Oak Park land. Of those, (c) seems to be the least likely outcome, but is a legal remedy under the OMA if a judge would choose to impose it.

Even if Alms and Partridge get the first two outcomes and nothing more, it will still send a strong message to the PPD not to play fast and loose with the Open Meetings Act. Shay would like to see that strong message sent to all public bodies — that we all have a right to hear public business discussed in public.

City to D150: Thanks, but no thanks

At a joint press conference today, the City officially responded to District 150’s counterproposal regarding the site of a new school for the Woodruff attendance area: “We respectfully decline.” Bob Manning explained that there was really very little room for negotiation to begin with.

“From day one, we put together our best-faith effort,” Manning said, referring to the City’s offer of $500,000 in property acquisition costs if the school board would build the replacement school at Frye and Wisconsin, site of the current Glen Oak Primary School. He added the City wouldn’t be making any further counterproposals.

It’s practically certain that the school district will now continue their pursuit of building the school at the corner of Prospect and Frye, adjacent to Glen Oak Park, and resume acquiring that property. But Ken Hinton, District 150 Superintendent, wouldn’t confirm that. He said he didn’t have the authority to make that statement because it’s a school board decision.

Mayor Ardis didn’t want today’s events to be characterized as “talks breaking down,” but rather that “we’ve agreed to disagree” and are moving forward. In fact, the catchphrase for the press conference was that both parties are “moving forward.”

“The important question is, ‘Where are we going?'” Hinton retorted when asked if it was easy for him to speak of moving forward when the district got everything it wanted. He called the school siting debate “a learning experience,” called attention to all the other ways the school board and City are working together, and stressed the school board and City have the same goal — to work together to provide the best education we can for the children of this community.

When asked if the city would cut any funding they currenly provide to District 150, Manning responded that there would be “no retaliatory strikes.” George Jacob congratulated Manning on his leadership on this issue and stressed that the City’s and community’s concern is rebuilding neighborhoods, and they would like to partner with District 150 and other governmental bodies (PHA, neighborhood associations, etc.) in the future in that effort.

My take: It was clear to City officials that the school district has no interest in compromising, so they figured it’s not worth pursuing any further. I hate to say “I told you so,” but I did predict this would be the outcome way back on July 17. It was clear from day one that the school district had no intention of seriously considering the city’s offer. One wonders why it took them two whole months (Manning gave them the City’s offer July 15) to respond.

I appreciated the conciliatory tone of the press conference, but let’s be honest — there is a rift between the city and the school district. Even though there may not be any “retaliatory strikes,” I believe that school projects are not going to be as high a priority now when it comes to budget-cutting time for the city. If the police department needs more officers on the street and there’s no money in the budget to hire more officers, do you think the truancy officers on loan to the school district might get reassigned? You bet.

So, while I’m sure there will be no capricious cutting of the city’s support for District 150, I don’t see the school board getting the level of cooperation and funding that they would have if they’d cooperated with the city on this school siting project.

But hey, the school district apparently doesn’t need money anyway, right? I mean, the whole premise of closing schools was to shutter the buildings and sell them, saving $500,000 per building according to their Master Facilities Plan. Yet when they closed Blaine-Sumner Middle School, they didn’t sell it or save a half-million dollars. They retrofitted it with air conditioning and turned it into an office building for the district’s special education workers. What about the health/safety problems? What about the asbestos? What about the $500,000 they need to save, which is the whole reason they’re closing buildings in the first place?

District 150 continues to lose credibility, and now they’re probably going to lose funding, too. If only their commitment to solvency and cooperation were as strong as their commitment to putting a suburban-style school at Glen Oak Park.

$10M price tag, other excuses highly questionable

The Journal Star reported on the last public meeting about changing Adams and Jefferson streets downtown from one-way to two-way. It’s clear that Public Works Director Steve Van Winkle doesn’t want to change them (why, I don’t know). He had an engineer from IDOT figure out the cost of switching, and supposedly it’s over $10 million.

I’d like to see the itemized bill for that one. Methinks the price is a bit inflated, perhaps because of the part of this quote I’ve emphasized:

Traffic officials also talked about the possibility of having one-way streets Downtown but having traffic going two-way just outside of Downtown. IDOT estimated the cost, which included changing traffic signals, changing signs and buying land, at more than $10 million.

“Buying land”? And just why would we need to buy land when Peoria already owns a right-of-way that handled two-way traffic in the first place?

But that’s not all — if their prices don’t scare you, perhaps their accident statistics will:

According to statistics from the Illinois Department of Transportation, the one-mile stretch of Adams Street that is two way south of U.S. Route 150 has a higher accident rate than the one-way sections of Adams and Jefferson Avenue that are just south of it.

The two-way stretch of road had 8.5 crashes per million vehicle miles driven, compared to 5 and 5.2 crashes per million vehicle miles on the one-way streets.

“There’s more crashes on the two-way section,” said Eric Therkildsen, a program development engineer with IDOT.

Ah, statistics. How do you suppose they were able to prove causality based on this correlation? How were they able to isolate the traffic-direction variable and determine this was the one and only reason crashes were up on one-way streets? Do you think things like visibility; the number of intersections, business entrances, employees; or the amount of traffic volume varied at all between these two stretches? And what was the time period for these data? The two-way section includes the intersection of routes 150 and 24 — are there a disproportionate number of accidents at that major intersection that could skew the results?

When the Public Works director is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at an idea to make it go away, it’s probably not going to happen. You can’t fight city hall, and I doubt there is anyone obsessed enough with converting streets to two-way that will fund his or her own feasibility study. So, it will likely die until such time as we get a Public Works director who is more open-minded.

Hotel “crisis” shouldn’t have been surprise

John Morris was nice enough to come up to me during Tuesday’s city council meeting and compliment me on my blog. In return, I think it’s only fair that I point out Mr. Morris’s excellent observation that same night regarding the Civic Center hotel study.

Many people (council members, the Journal Star, and even I, myself) have expressed surprise over this hotel “crisis” that seems to have been sprung on us after the $55 million Civic Center expansion is almost completed. But Morris claims it shouldn’t have come as any surprise, at least to those on the council.

He referenced the “Peoria Civic Center Masterplan Analysis” study which was done in August 2002 (before the expansion was approved) by C. H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. I didn’t read feasibility studies on this stuff until I started blogging, which was only Spring 2005, so I’d never read this particular report. I was shocked. I’m going to quote heavily, so brace yourselves. It said (emphasis mine):

Despite the available occupancy in downtown hotels, Peoria is actually poorly positioned from an inventory standpoint to handle the needs of additional demand generators for three reasons; product quality, proximity of room inventory, and available room block. To effectively service a convention center and add value to the convention sales effort a hotel property must typically must be located within ten blocks (or reasonable walking distance) of a center, the property must be willing to commit approximately 60 percent of its room inventory to the convention center room block, and the hotel must offer a quality room product.

For the Peoria Civic Center, there are four hotel properties that have the potential to meet these criteria – the 288-room Hotel Pere Marquette, the 327-room Holiday Inn City Center, the 110-room Mark Twain, and the 108-room Staybridge Suites. At this time, however, the Staybridge chooses not to participate in the convention center room block, which removes it from consideration in the convention center package. The remaining three properties have a total inventory of 725 rooms, but none is located proximate the convention center. At two blocks, the Pere Marquette is the closest property, however, the property needs improvements in its quality. Given that Peoria is a cold-weather market, any distance beyond two blocks adds infinitely to the challenge of selling the center during winter months.

Under the assumption that 60 percent of the 725-room inventory in the three hotels is available, downtown Peoria can only offer a room block of 435 rooms. Even if the room block commitment is increased to 70 percent, only 507 rooms are available in the nearby properties. The lack of available rooms and their distance of many of the rooms from the PCC, means that many meeting planners and tradeshow promoters bypass Peoria as potential destination for their events, which translates directly into lost economic activity in the market.

Later in the report, they added (again, emphasis mine):

The Peoria Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau tracks “lost” convention and meeting business. These are groups that that looked at the city, but ultimately decided to stage their events in another market because the PCC was either too small, the hotel room inventory in downtown Peoria was insufficient or not of the quality preferred by meeting planners, or other factors.

And, just to drive the point home, the Johnson report lists the responses from a survey of Illinois meeting planners on how they perceive Peoria as a place to hold events. One of the findings (emphasis mine):

When asked for suggestions with regard to improvements that could be introduced into downtown Peoria that would make the city a more attractive market, a common response was the need of a hotel to be connected to the convention center large enough to hold a group our size.

I keep quoting this stuff to point out that it wasn’t some isolated statement buried in the report. It came up over and over and over again. Under “Implications for Peoria,” toward the end of the report, they mention again, “as the city improves its downtown offerings and induces additional demand into the market, it must also improve its hotel offerings.”

But was it “critical” back in 2002? Yes — it even uses that exact word: “Critical the success of convention centers is the availability of proximate hotel rooms.” And look at this specific recommendation and see if it doesn’t sound familiar (emphasis mine):

…comparable facilities have a proximate hotel inventory (within three blocks) ranging from 700 to 1,000 hotel rooms, while the Peoria Civic Center has only the Pere Marquette’s 288 rooms nearby. With the recommended expanded and renovated facilities, Peoria will need a larger, higher-quality hotel package. In order to not only be competitive, but to accommodate more and larger groups, Peoria should consider:

  • Connecting the Hotel Pere Marquette to the Peoria Civic Center via walkway, as is the case in many cities in the US….
  • Inducing the development of an additional three-star hotel, such as the under-construction Hilton Garden Inn adjacent to the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center in Louisville, Kentucky. …The City can help induce this development by providing a site, rebating property taxes, or any number of incentives.
  • Promoting the upgrade of the existing hotel room stock in the city….

So, what’s my point? The Civic Center Authority and the City Council knew that this hotel deal was an integral part of the Civic Center expansion and that it was likely to need public funding. It shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone who read the report. Nevertheless, the Civic Center tried to make the city believe that it could overcome that hurdle without adding to the $55 million price tag (see my previous post). That was wishful thinking at best, calculated deception at worst. Considering what was already known about how much comparable cities were spending to lure hotels to their areas, the city and Civic Center were naive if they thought Peoria could lure a hotel without any incentives.

So what do we do now? I recommend the city wait. Don’t react to this as if you have to build a new hotel tomorrow or the sky will fall. The Civic Center Authority told the council back in 2004, “We believe [the Civic Center expansion] can be successful without an attached hotel,” and did not request any public funding for a new hotel. I say, hold them to their word. What’s changed in the last two years? Nothing. They should be required to make a go of it without a penny more of public funding, just like they requested before this project started. It would be interesting to see what happens. It’s not like we can’t induce a hotel to locate here in the future if necessary.

The Holiday Inn will be under new management soon and is going to be undergoing renovations. Once the Civic Center expansion is done, presumably there will be some increase in the number of events, which will translate into more demand for hotel rooms. Let’s see what the free market does for a while. We might be surprised.

Sensible environmentalism

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m looking for ways to cut my energy costs — without having to live like the Unabomber. Eyebrows McGee has been writing me giving me all sorts of great ideas, and now she has compiled many of them into this post on her blog. It’s well worth the read, especially since electricity costs are currently slated to skyrocket in January.

She’s what I would call a “sensible environmentalist.” When I see environmentalists on, say, C-SPAN or something, they’re usually advocating some totally unrealistic or radical method of saving energy (like living in a yurt), and I just roll my eyes and move on. But Eyebrows has some very practical things that don’t involve completely changing your lifestyle.

I can totally buy all her suggestions except for one: replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent ones. I understand the energy savings, but I hate fluorescent lights. I hate how they look and how they make me feel. Their light casts a pall on everything that I find utterly depressing. (I know, I know, I should talk to a psychologist about this.) I prefer the soft yellow-white light of a burning incandescent globe, and I don’t think I could ever give that up. It’s easy to install. You can also hire electricians like W3 Electric to do it for you. You can also upgrade your Electrical Panel if it’s already old; this will help you save more money.

Other than that, great ideas — I especially like the idea of solar roofing materials; that’s clearly come a long way since big solar panels. Nice to know the aesthetes are making headway in beautifying (or at least camouflaging) new technology. For roofing installation, you can visit their site or contact experts like Bondoc Roofing.

Journal Star cranks out fresh batch of Kellar propaganda

I have just a few comments to make about today’s Kellar Branch editorial. I knew when I saw a pro-rail article on Sunday that a negative editorial had to be just around the corner, and the Journal Star did not dissapoint.

Titled “Commuter rail on Kellar line a fantasy,” the Journal Star tells us to “[f]ile this [idea] under the folder marked ‘Pie in the Sky.'” This, from a newspaper that thinks a hiking trail is going to draw tourists and residents to Peoria in droves, as if a hiking trail were some sort of unique geological feature not present in every other city.

They argue that riding the train downtown would take too long. “Peoria’s the 15-minute city, remember? It’s far easier to hop in the car.” “Even if gas was $5 a gallon,” they insist, “it’s hard to believe that North Peoria and Dunlap workers and shoppers in any number would park their cars at a depot” and take the train. Yet just four months ago (May 6), they one of their reporters had this to say: “Hikers and bikers hoping to save gasoline or work off calories on the Kellar Branch trail likely won’t be using it any time soon.” (emphasis mine) So, apparently, the Journal Star trail advocates believes that people will park their cars at a trail access point, walk or bike in the elements to their workplace or to go shopping, all in an effort to save gas. But they won’t go to an enclosed depot, get on a climate-controlled train, and ride it to work or go shopping. Somehow, that plan isn’t “Pie in the Sky.”

The next line is killer: “Beyond that, who’s going to pay for this? Where’s the feasibility study? If private sector folks were convinced they could do this without courting bankruptcy, they’d be lining up, wouldn’t they?” Ironically, Pioneer Railcorp, a private business, has already offered to pay for it. They’ve been lining up to purchase the line, provide freight service, help build the trail, and provide commuter/tourist train service. And they’ve had that offer on the table for two years. The city would get $565,000 for the line, $100,000 in help building the trail, yet the Journal Star implies this private development would be costlier to the taxpayer than ripping out the half-million dollar asset and leasing the whole right-of-way to the Park District for $1/year for 99 years! And speaking of feasibility studies, where is the Park District’s?

“Let’s call this proposal what it is: a misguided attempt to try to derail plans for a Kellar branch hiking/biking trail,” they say. First of all, let’s not mix metaphors. The hiking/biking trail proponents are the ones who want to “de-rail” the Kellar Branch. Secondly, that statement is patently untrue. Those who want to save the Kellar rail line are in favor of a trail side-by-side with the rail line. Pioneer has even offered to donate $100,000 in equipment and labor toward building the trail! Ignorance is bliss at 1 News Plaza. The Journal Star seems to be exhibiting a martyr complex.

This statement is puzzling: “The more shrill opponents erroneously assert that anyone who supports a Kellar hiking trail must then oppose trains, as if rail and trail were arch-enemies. Wrong. Central Illinois’ freight rail infrastructure greatly benefits the region.” This, after they just finished falsely accusing commuter rail proponents of opposing trails! Add projection to the martyr complex. And who are these “shrill opponents” of whom they speak?

“But let’s not kid ourselves. Peoria isn’t […] Napa Valley, Calif., drawing the tens of thousands of customers necessary to sustain a tourism train.” Did you know the Journal Star was an expert on how many customers are necessary to sustain a tourist train? I’m sure they’ve done an exhaustive feasibility study on this. Pioneer Railcorp actually owns and operates a tourist train in Gettysburg, Penn. Who do you think is in a better position to guage the feasibility of this plan — Pioneer or the Journal Star?

I won’t bother typing out the final paragraph as it’s just a summary of their faulty reasoning. Whether or not you believe commuter rail is feasible, at least it would be provided by a private company and the city would derive the proceeds of over a half-million dollars for the line. And if commuter service fails, the city would still have freight rail service and a trail alongside the rail line. So, what is there to lose?

Price freeze hasn’t hurt Ameren’s profits

The Citizens Utility Board (CUB) has compiled some interesting data on Ameren. Starting in 1997, the year electricity rates were frozen by the state, they graph Ameren’s profits every other proceeding year, right up to 2005. One would expect profits to be modest at best, given the handicap of a rate freeze. But check this out:

Ameren Profits from CUB

Doesn’t look like the price freeze negatively affected their ability to nearly double their profits over the past ten years. So, it appears Ameren doesn’t really need that 55% increase, does it? It would be fair for someone to retort, “Why shouldn’t they be allowed to raise their rates 55%? Let the free market decide!”

Ah, but therein lies the problem. Ameren is still a monopoly in residential services. If you don’t like the Ameren rate hike and decide to go with their competition… you can’t, because there is no competition. Thus, consumers do deserve protection from price gouging — and a good case can be made that this is, in fact, price gouging.

There are those who are trying to help. CUB has “filed a brief with the appellate court, arguing the [rate hike] plan is illegal and hits consumers with unfair market prices at a time when the power companies still hold a monopoly on residential services,” according to today’s Journal Star. And Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is trying to get the results of the recent reverse auction thrown out on the same basis.

CUB also reports, “Under the Electric Consumer Protection Act, HB 5766, rates would be frozen for another three years or until at least 33 percent of residential customers have switched electric suppliers.” So, it looks like there’s a possibility that 55% rate hike may not take effect in January after all.

Is District 150 tacitly abandoning East Bluff school?

Mentioned briefly at the end of the Journal Star’s article on the District 150 board meeting last night is this nugget:

The board agreed to begin negotiations with an architectural team to design a replacement school for Harrison Primary School.

The district will begin negotiations with local firm LZT Associates and Chicago-based firm Perkins+Will. The district intends to replace Harrison with a new school across the street. The planned site is a recently demolished section of Harrison Homes on Krause Avenue.

No mention of the East Bluff replacement school in that story. But there was a passing comment on WCBU this morning that the school district still hasn’t come to an agreement with the city on where to build a new school in the East Bluff; and they added, one may not be built at all.

Although a decision has not been officially made, it appears to me the district has made up their mind. They’ve already established in previous meetings that they don’t like the city’s site preference and the cost of building a “birth through eighth community center” type of school will cost millions of dollars more than they budgeted for construction. Several weeks ago, Superintendent Hinton and other board members stressed how urgent it was to make a decision soon so they could get the new school built in time before Glen Oak School is slated to close. Considering that we haven’t heard anything about the East Bluff replacement school for weeks now, and seeing how the district has shifted focus to the new Harrison replacement school, my intuition tells me there isn’t going to be a new school in the East Bluff anytime soon, and Glen Oak’s closing will likely be delayed.

I could be totally wrong in my prediction. But if I’m right, it raises another question. If they do officially decide not to build a new school in the East Bluff, will they reopen White School?