Daily Archives: January 2, 2007

Peoria Park District

Glen Oak Park languishes even as Zoo construction begins

13 Comments

Take a drive by the Luthy Botanical Gardens by Glen Oak Zoo and you’ll see a lot of activity. You may feel a bit disoriented by the sight of uprooted trees piled across the street and the plethora of earthmoving equipment. The serenity of nearby Glen Oak Park and Springdale Cemetery is broken by metronomic beats of steel being pounded into the ground to form an erosion-control wall. The land has the familiar graded look of being cleared for a new commercial business or housing project.

But this isn’t commercial or residential — it’s all the beginning of a $32.1 million addition to the Zoo called “Africa!” While the new zoo project is the site of new construction, the park next door shows disturbing signs of neglect.

Glen Oak Park, established in 1894, has a lot of things going for it: it’s in the middle of town, so it’s easily accessible by city dwellers wishing to enjoy its open fields and dense woods; it has a relatively new playground that children enjoy; its amphitheater is home to public dances, movies, Municipal Band concerts, Independence Day fireworks celebrations, and many other community events; it has a rich diversity of attractions, including tennis courts, the aforementioned zoo, baseball/softball diamonds, picnic areas, running track, lagoon, etc. The park has witnessed the best dresses for homecoming over the years.

But then there’s the other side of Glen Oak Park:

No Pedestrians

Foot Bridge

Glen Oak Cannon

Besides the footbridge being closed, the fact that no one can walk or drive under it effectively closes off a significant area of the park. Based on satellite photos, it appears the road behind the chain-link fence eventually meets up with the driveway that ascends from the lower entrance. Why should such a large area of the park be inaccessible due to poor maintenance of the suspension bridge once known as “Lover’s Bridge”?

The parapet is the most visible sign of what PeoriaIllinoisan rightly calls “demolition by neglect.” Is there any reason why this structure could not be repaired and maintained so as to be enjoyed by many families to come? What is gained by removing it? What will be put in its place?

Over the years, the Park District has poured money into projects of questionable value, such as the money-losing RiverPlex. There’s a certain excitement that comes from doing new things and being “progressive.” And no one wants the Park District to stagnate or never try anything new. But whatever new projects they fund should not come at the expense of maintaining the nearly 9,000 acres of land and other assets for which they’re currently responsible.

Now that the Park District has done the right thing by not allowing further encroachment into Glen Oak Park in the form of a school district land-sharing arrangement, they should focus on fixing up the park so that all the land can be enjoyed by those who go there. Tuckpoint the parapet. Fix or, if necessary, remove the foot bridge — but by all means, reduce the hazard so it doesn’t obstruct access. Maybe the bridge could be dismantled and moved to another part of the park if it doesn’t fit into the zoo plans in its current location.

Let’s polish up this jewel in the middle of our city and really make it shine once again.

[Cannon photo courtesy of PeoriaIllinoisan]

State Legislation

Note to Park Board: New OMA law takes effect

3 Comments

OMA EyeEffective in 2007, there’s a new wrinkle in the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Senate Bill 585 was signed into law on July 31 last year, and it took effect yesterday. Here’s what it does:

Redefines a “meeting” to include gatherings, whether in person or by telephone call, video or audio conference, electronic means (such as e-mail, chat, and instant messaging), or other means of contemporaneous interactive communication, of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business.

So, for instance, if a quorum of Park Board members were to all be chatting on IM or via e-mail about public business, that would be a violation of the OMA. Why? Because that would constitute a “meeting,” and another revision to the OMA outlaws this type of meeting:

[SB 585] requires that the number of public body members necessary to constitute a quorum must be physically present at an open meeting and permits participation and voting by other members by audio and video conference.

In other words, you can’t have a meeting over e-mail or IM. And audio or video conferencing is acceptable only under strict conditions:

If a quorum of the members of the public body is physically present as required by Section 2.01, a majority of the public body may allow a member of that body to attend the meeting by other means if the member is prevented from physically attending because of: (i) personal illness or disability; (ii) employment purposes or the business of the public body; or (iii) a family or other emergency. “Other means” is by video or audio conference.

These revisions will help to keep public business performed in public (assuming public bodies don’t go into closed session illegally and then destroy the evidence when caught). There’s no reasonable way for the public to monitor IM or e-mail deliberations, so requiring public bodies to be physically present in one place at one time so the public can attend and hear their discussions is responsible governance.

Kudos to the state legislature for ensuring this level of transparency.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 determined to not even consider Glen Oak School site

12 Comments

On WCBU radio this morning, the local news broadcast included a story on District 150 and their search for a Glen Oak/White replacement school site. School Board President David Gorenz was interviewed; he said that using the current Glen Oak School site would be “cost-prohibitive” even if they scaled back the size of the parcel they needed.

One wonders on what facts he bases that statement. Is that based on a complete teardown and rebuilding without first doing a “final review” of whether the current building could be renovated? Is that based on 10 acres? 5 acres? What configuration? Does it include selling the properties on Prospect (almost certainly at a loss) that the District bought prematurely? Does that include the $500,000 in City support that Bob Manning is still willing to ask the Council for if the District would come back to the negotiating table? Is it cost-prohibitive because they’re still trying to build a more-expensive “birth-through-eighth” school instead of a K-8 school?

The public is wearying of assumption-based School Board actions.

City of Peoria, Crime, Peoria Police

First day of the new year yields first murder

This isn’t a good omen. DeAndre Allen of Peoria was shot to death at 9:10 p.m. on New Year’s Day at 3229 N. Gale Ave. And Peoria’s homicide rate continues unabated.

But Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard is looking on the bright side. Noting that another person standing near Allen was also grazed by a bullet, the Journal Star quotes the Chief as saying:

“It’s very difficult,” Settingsgaard said of the new year’s first homicide. “We’re lucky we don’t have two people dead.”

With every dark cloud, there’s a silver lining, eh? It’s good to be positive, but something has to be done to curb the homicide rate in this city before we get a reputation like Gary, Indiana.