Monthly Archives: July 2007

City Council, City of Peoria

Parental responsibility laws largely unenforced, likely unconstitutional

5 Comments

During the “new business” portion of Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Mayor Ardis distributed a memo to all the council members that said:

I am attaching a communication that I sent to the previous council this past spring with a few examples of Parental Responsibility Ordinances being used in other cities. l would like to entertain a discussion on the need for a similar ordinance in Peoria sometime in August.

Attached to the memo were copies of ordinances from five other communities: Des Plaines, IL; Grand Rapids, MI; Royal Oak, MI; Silverton, OR; and Cincinnati, OH (repealed 2002). The council will discuss this topic at the August 28 council meeting.

Rarely Enforced

It’s not surprising that this would come up again right after an unsupervised 15-year-old threw a stone off an I-74 overpass, killing the passenger of a passing car. But how effective are these laws? According to “An Empirical Study of Parental Responsibility Laws” published just last year in the Utah Law Review, not very.

University of Oregon School of Law professor Leslie Joan Harris surveyed every police chief and prosecutor in the state of Oregon and found that “the responses to the questionnaires showed overwhelmingly that parental responsibility laws are rarely, if ever, enforced in most places.” Instead, she finds that they are generally symbolic, “enacted to articulate community values about proper parenting and to induce ‘bad’ parents to reform.” However, such laws do increase the probability that curfew laws will be more stringently enforced. She concludes (emphasis added):

Finally, parental responsibility laws define youth crime as a private problem born of familial failure rather than behavior that, at low levels, is a usual part of the maturation process and, at higher levels, may call for collective efforts to engage teenagers in positive ways, including helping parents in difficult situations. The laws provide politicians with a cheap and easy way of avoiding meaningful efforts to address significant social issues.

I’d recommend reading the whole report as it’s very interesting; it includes a brief history of parental responsibility laws over the last hundred years. It’s interesting to note that these findings are consistent with Jennifer Davis’s report in the Journal Star today. Davis has been calling the communities listed in the Mayor’s memorandum and has so far found that their ordinances are rarely, if ever, enforced as well.

Likely Unconstitutional

But there’s a bigger problem on the horizon for parental responsibility laws. On June 29, 2007, a municipal judge in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, ruled that the city of Maple Heights’s parental responsibility law is unconstitutionalbecause it violates the due process clause of the fourth amendment. (All legal documents related to this ruling are available here. Here’s a PDF version of the ruling.)

Maple Heights’s ordinance was patterned after the one in Silverton, Oregon (which is one of the ordinances being reviewed by Peoria as a possible template as well), and reads in part:

(a) A person commits the offense of failing to supervise a minor if: the person is the parent, legal guardian, or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of a child under 18 years of age, and the child has committed a status offense, unruly act or a delinquent act that would be a misdemeanor or felony of any degree if committed by an adult.

(b) It shall be a defense to the offense of failure to supervise a minor if the person took reasonable steps to control the conduct of the child at the time the person is alleged to have failed to supervise.

Judge Jennifer P. Weiler explains why this does not stand constitutional muster. “The due process clause of the United States Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the offense charged.” In other words, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty — the burden of proof is on the accuser. Weiler continues:

The substance of the Maple Heights offense is the failure to supervise a minor. However, the ordinance presumes a violation where a parent has a child who has committed an offense. It is up to the parent to demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to control the child’s conduct. As such, it is the accused’s burden to demonstrate there was no failure to supervise. This contravenes…the due process requirements….

The ordinance also failed on two other due-process counts. Nevertheless, the City of Maple Heights filed their notice of appeal last Friday, July 20 says Blake Ledbetter of Conoscienti & Ledbetter in Atlanta, Georgia. This isn’t to say that an ordinance couldn’t be crafted that would be consistent with the constitution, but it does reveal that existing ordinances haven’t yet been adequately tested in court.

Just for the record, when I started researching this I was in favor of a parental responsibility ordinance for Peoria. I came to this topic predisposed to look for positive evidence of its efficacy. However, considering the unlikelihood of enforcement, and the questionable constitutionality of such laws, I’m now inclined to think that this is probably not a very effective tool to combat juvenile crime in Peoria.

Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

“Mature neighborhoods” worth saving from IDOT, but not Bradley

13 Comments

At Tuesday’s council meeting, there was quite a bit of discussion about the Northmoor Road improvement project. If the city is going to use IDOT funds for this project, they have to follow IDOT’s rules, and in this case it would mean widening the street to five lanes between Allen and Sheridan roads. The road doesn’t need five lanes.

So, the City Council is trying to persuade IDOT to see things the city’s way and approve fewer lanes for this project, yet not jeopardize our share of federal funds in the process. This is all laudable.

I couldn’t help but notice the irony, though, when Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken started waxing eloquent about why we need to say “no” to IDOT. We need to stand up and say “no,” she said, because these five-lane highways harm “mature neighborhoods.” And if they don’t believe it harms “mature neighborhoods,” then they can come down here and a take a little tour, she continued. We need to tell IDOT that we’re not going to let them mar one more “mature neighborhood,” even if it means losing that federal money, she concluded. She made a very strong statement, and I agree wholeheartedly with it.

I just wish she’d been that bold toward Bradley University when they decided to decimate a “mature neighborhood” for the sake of a parking garage in her own district.

Arbor District Demolition

*My thanks to PeoriaIllinoisan from whom I shamelessly stole this picture.

City Council, City of Peoria, HOPC

Heart of Peoria Commission lives on

5 Comments

The City Council on Tuesday approved the compromise agreement that will leave the Heart of Peoria Commission intact. The compromise agreement had three parts:

  1. Approve the Heart of Peoria Commission Work Plan — The council approved this work plan with one exception: the money that’s listed in the capital budget column was not approved Tuesday, but will be requested through the normal capital budget process.
  2. Expand the Planning Commission by two positions — There are no openings currently on the Planning Commission, but it’s important to infuse New Urbanism principles into that commission since they are responsible for the Comprehensive Plan, which is the city’s vision document. Thus, in order to appoint a couple of Heart of Peoria Commission members to the Planning Commission, two new positions needed to be created, expanding the size from seven to nine members.
  3. Appointing several HOPC members to other commissions — This is what was suggested in the Committee on Commissions report: that HOPC members would be dual-appointed to other commissions in order to instill the principles of New Urbanism into the existing committee structure. The appointments that were made were:
    • Joe Richey — Planning Commission
    • Dick Schwebel — Planning Commission
    • Nancy Biggins — Zoning Board of Appeals
    • Pat Sullivan — Traffic Commission
    • Bill Washkuhn — TBD

Mayor Ardis was on WCBU’s “Outside the Horseshoe” program with Jonathan Ahl Tuesday night before the council meeting. He explained that, while he originally planned to expand the Planning Commission by four members, there was some concern from current Planning Commission members about that, and that reducing the expansion to two members was part of the compromise agreement. WCBU will eventually put that program up as a podcast, so you can check this link to see if it’s there yet.

The next Heart of Peoria Commission meeting is scheduled for Friday, August 24 at 8:00 a.m.

City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

Journal Star blindly supports more money for D150

9 Comments

Peoria Public Schools logoThe Journal Star Editorial Board thinks District 150 deserves more support from the City. They think the proposal on tonight’s agenda to “share inflationary revenue growth from those properties in the [Eagle View] TIF that don’t participate in the redevelopment program” is too stingy.

They start off by saying, “The Peoria City Council should have no trouble approving an agreement with District 150 tonight that, for the first time locally, would allow the city’s largest school system to share in the proceeds from a tax increment financing district before its term is over.” First time, eh? Apparently the JSEB is unaware of or has forgotten about the $236,000 the school district receives annually from the Southtown TIF.

“That said, it’s little more than a toe in the water of the city-school cooperation that is so desperately needed if Peoria is to be an attractive place for young families,” they continue. By “cooperation,” they mean “giving money to District 150.” Never mind that the city already gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to the school system every year. Never mind that District 150 is its own taxing body — it takes the lion’s share of our property taxes every year. Never mind that, after figuring in all sources of revenue, the City of Peoria’s budget is only about $10 million more than District 150’s to start with (~$160 million vs. $150 million, respectively).

That’s not enough for the JSEB, or District 150.

If anyone at City Hall wonders why Peoria’s overall population is at best flat, and why its status in Illinois is declining even with all the new subdivisions sprouting on its northwest side in a different school district, Peoria’s core public school system is a big reason, followed closely by violent crime.

They’ve got that right. But naturally the JSEB blames the school district’s failure on the City and their TIF districts. Has the Journal Star Editorial Board ever considered the possibility that District 150 might be in the mess it is because of their own mismanagement? That maybe paying for four superintendents to do the job of one is a wee bit of a waste? That spending almost a million dollars on property they can’t use might be contributing a tad to their woes? That low testing scores and their inability to make adequate yearly progress is negatively affecting their funding more than the City of Peoria’s tax increment financing districts?

Yet some local voices are still urging the city to sever any relationship with District 150. It’s mystifying, because all involved would only be punishing themselves.

Heh. We’re being punished either way; why not save the money?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I’m all for true cooperation — but cooperation works both ways. The School Board (and evidently the JSEB, too) seems to believe that a “give and take” relationship with the city means that the city gives and the school board takes. It doesn’t work that way. I don’t think it’s asking too much for the school board to work with the city on, say, siting of an East Bluff school. Or, say, focusing on improving their test scores so they stop driving people out of the city.

More money is not the answer for District 150. Better management is. And sadly, the City has no control over that.

AmerenCILCO, State Legislation, State of Illinois

Ameren touts benefits of rate relief

1 Comment

Ameren is pleased with the new rate relief package that was unveiled yesterday. A press release from Ameren today explains why:

Gary L. Rainwater, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Ameren Corporation, noted: “This comprehensive rate relief package provides significant benefits to our Illinois electric customers, while benefiting our shareholders by providing legislative stability. It also avoids a costly, lengthy and undesirable court battle to overturn a rate freeze and power generation tax.”

That “legislative stability” is a provision of the relief package that states, “The General Assembly leadership agrees not to pass legislation that would freeze or reduce electric rates, or impose a tax, special assessment or fee on electricity generators through
Aug. 1, 2011.” So the charges of collusion are dropped and the threat of an imminent rate freeze is dropped. Ameren’s happy, and Ameren’s shareholders are happy.

How about Ameren’s customers? I think they’re going to be happy, too. Here are a couple of pie charts that Ameren released today to show the effect this rate relief will have on customers’ electric bills:

Ameren Chart Before Rate Relief

Ameren Chart After Rate Relief

Of course these graphs only depict 2007 rate increases, since they’re phasing in the rate increases over three years (January 2007 through December 2009). To make up for the higher rates we’ve been paying since January, Ameren will be mailing us all rebate checks. Ameren has provided this graphic to explain how much we may be getting:

Typical Residential Credits

All this will be funded by the electricity-generating companies — the ones who made out like bandits in the reverse auction deal:

The $1-billion statewide rate relief package will be funded by contributions of $150 million from Ameren-affiliated companies and $800 million from Exelon-affiliated companies, with the remainder coming from other electric generating companies in the state. Ameren Corporation expects earnings per share will be reduced by approximately 26, 11, 7 and 1 cents per share in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively, as a result of the rate relief package.

You can read the full press release from Ameren here. The Citizens Utility Board is cautiously optimistic about this deal, and as far as I know they’re not receiving any money from the power companies this time around. So far, this appears to be a good deal for everyone. Only time will tell if it really is or not.

State Legislation, State of Illinois

No smoking

16 Comments

No Smoking by lawGov. Blagojevich signed the Smoke-Free Illinois Act yesterday. This legislation protects health-conscious non-smokers who lack the common sense to avoid smoking establishments. You gotta love the logic: non-smokers choose of their own free will to patronize a restaurant that allows smoking, then complain about the smoke. Then these victims by choice get a law passed forcing restaurant owners to disallow smoking in their own private business.

Or, they could have just gone to a non-smoking restaurant and the problem would have been solved, leaving property rights intact. Being a non-smoker myself, I very rarely had to put up with cigarette smoke because most of the time I would just go to restaurants that didn’t allow smoking. Silly me.

AmerenCILCO, State Legislation, State of Illinois

Rate relief likely to pass

2 Comments

Ameren LogoThe Springfield State Journal-Register reports that although no votes have been taken yet, the rate relief package unveiled yesterday is likely to pass. Indeed, everyone seems to be happy with the plan, even Ameren. So it appears to be a win-win-win.

As I understand it, there’s a short-term and long-term component. In the short-term, rate increases will be phased in. That means we’ll be getting a refund for electric rate increases over the first seven months of this year and then lower, but gradually increasing bills from now until 2010, when we’ll be back up to paying market rates again.

As for the long-term:

The main component of the long-term reform involves creation of the Illinois Power Authority, which will oversee state-regulated utilities’ purchase of electricity in the future. Once the IPA is launched, the reverse auction that was used last year to set the present electric rates will be discontinued.

The reverse auction improperly led to “windfall profits” for power generators, including those sharing a parent company with ComEd and Ameren, said Michael Madigan, who touted the benefits of the IPA at every stop on the fly-around.

You may recall that Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a lawsuit against the energy companies involved in the reverse auction accusing them of collusion to inflate energy prices. She’s planning to drop that suit if this plan passes.

I’ll have more analysis of this later after I have a chance to look at some information I received from Ameren today.

City of Peoria, Open Meetings Act

Circumventing the Open Meetings Act

13 Comments

By Invitation OnlyThe Open Meetings Act (OMA) is hard to follow. Even people like me who want to follow it conscientiously can sometimes find that we’ve inadvertently violated it. So, I just want to acknowledge up front that you really have to be on your toes when it comes to OMA.

It’s a different story, however, when officials set out specifically to circumvent the OMA. In today’s Word on the Street, intrepid reporter Jennifer Davis revealed this about efforts to get consensus on the “Knoxville corridor” controversy:

There was a special meeting with all the stakeholders this past week, which the city wanted to keep closed. That’s fine, because we’ve been promised there will be public hearings on this issue.

Still, to avoid triggering the Illinois Open Meetings Act, the city had to ensure a majority of a quorum from either the City Council or a city commission didn’t attend.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan states that, “[i]n its present form, the [Open Meetings] Act is designed to ensure that public business is conducted in public view, by prohibiting secret deliberations and actions on matters that should be discussed in a public forum.” If what Jennifer Davis described isn’t “secret deliberations,” then I don’t know what is. They wanted to deliberate (definition: “consider a question carefully”) the matter secretly, so they found a way to do so without “triggering the Open Meetings Act.”

Of course, the justification for this is that “there will be public hearings on this issue.” But that’s the point — the public hearings are where this matter should be deliberated. If it’s going to be hammered out in a back room among representatives from the council and commissions, doesn’t that abort the whole public hearing process? I mean, if a consensus was already reached by the members of the secret panel, then the public hearing becomes nothing more than a formality. The result of the hearings is predetermined.

But here’s the goofy part: We already had public hearings on this. They were the public hearings for the Land Development Code. This was all aired then. Remember the result? The Planning Commission (on which Maloof Realty employee Suzi Miller sits) and City staff recommended 150-foot setbacks, but the Zoning and Heart of Peoria commissions recommended 80-foot setbacks. Then it went to council.

Now the deliberation should take place in council chambers during one of their semimonthly meetings. They have all the information from both sides. If they have any questions, they can invite representatives to the council meeting to explain — where everyone can hear them and where they will be on the record. Why the need for these secret meetings and further public hearings?

Global Warming

The Great Global Warming Swindle

14 Comments

Global WarmingNow here’s a program I learned about today while watching BookTV on C-SPAN. It’s called “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” and was broadcast on British television in March of this year.

In a nutshell, it makes the case that man-made global warming is junk science; i.e., that increased CO2 levels are not a cause, but rather an effect, of global warming, and that climate change is instead caused by solar activity. Recent warming is part of the earth’s natural warming and cooling cycles that have gone on for thousands of years, the program goes on to argue. It’s kind of like a rebuttal to Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth.”

There are those who think the documentary is a bunch of bunk, of course (like this site), and in addition to rebutting the claims made in the program, tries to discredit the filmmaker. But then, there are those who think Al Gore’s documentary is full of inaccuracies, too (like this site). Naturally, Wikipedia has an entry on it already (and it’s mentioned in the entry for Gore’s film as well).

All of this leads me to believe that at least one claim in this documentary is true: that man-made global warming has become a bit like a religion, with those who disagree on the tenets being labeled heretics by the opposing side. I don’t see the harm in looking at both sides of the issue. I mean, isn’t science all about challenging hypotheses and testing theories? Why all the fear? I find it amusing that the man-made-global-warming-theorists are calling this film WWII-style propaganda, yet see no irony in their efforts to suppress the release of it in DVD format. Propaganda bad, censorship good? Heh.

The program is on YouTube (what isn’t?), if you’d like to view it and form your own opinion. It’s about 75 minutes long, so it’s broken into eight parts. For your convenience, you can watch it here by clicking the “Read the rest of this entry” link below.

Continue reading The Great Global Warming Swindle →