When the Cable and Video Competition Law passed in Illinois, I expressed some concern over what it would mean for Peoria. You may recall that the Act states:

…if the holder [of a state franchise agreement] is an incumbent cable operator or any successor-in-interest company, it shall be obligated to provide access to cable or video services within the jurisdiction of a local unit of government at the same levels required by the local franchising authorities for that local unit of government…

And I said:

The Act defines “incumbent cable operator” as an entity “that provided cable services or video services in a particular area under a franchise agreement with a local unity of government…on January 1, 2007.” Insight has not had a franchise agreement with Peoria since April 2006 when the last agreement expired. The city has been negotiating a new franchise agreement ever since, but the two parties have not come to terms. So it’s very possible that Insight would not be subject to the “incumbent cable operator” provisions of the Act.

But on Tuesday that problem may very well be solved. The council likely will approve a franchise agreement extension until January 1, 2008, retroactive to April 15, 2006. This extension would also approve a transfer of the agreement from Insight to Comcast. The upshot is that Comcast will be considered Peoria’s undisputed incumbent cable operator, and that may work to Peoria’s advantage whenever Comcast decides what kind of franchise agreement (state or local) it wants to pursue.

Basically what this means is that we won’t see any reduction in cable service, if this agreement is approved.

City Council, City of Peoria, Insight Communications, Television | 6 Comments »

On the consent agenda for the city council Tuesday night is a request from the Coves of Charter Oak Homeowners’ Association to have a gate put across a public right-of-way.

The Coves of Charter Oak is a new subdivision (with restrictions) off of Charter Oak road (across from Weaverridge) that backs up to the older Vinton Highlands subdivision off of Big Hollow road. There’s a common road that connects the two subdivisions called Sedley avenue. The city’s subdivision ordinance requires that the “arrangement of streets in new subdivisions or development shall make provisions for the continuance of the existing streets in adjoining areas” (Ord. No. 10455, § 1, 5-29-79). Hence, Sedley is a through street.

Well, the residents of The Coves have “concerns.” Those concerns are unfortunately not specified in the council request, so the public can only speculate. However, it’s The Coves neighborhood association that is not only making the request, but paying to have the gate installed and maintained, so I think it’s safe to say this is not a mutual concern with the homeowners in Vinton Highlands. Also, they’re not wanting to put a gate at the other entrance to this subdivision — the one off of Charter Oak road. And one would have to assume that The Coves residents are not trying to keep themselves out of Vinton Highlands.

So, let’s see, what does that leave? A concern over cut-through traffic from outside either neighborhood? It seems unlikely that anyone would cut through Sedley when either Frostwood Parkway or Big Hollow Road would be faster routes. So I’m going to have to conclude that The Cove residents simply don’t want Vinton Highlands residents driving through their neighborhood.

The only other gates across a public thoroughfare that I can think of are the gates across Mt. Hawley Road at Kellar grade school. I don’t particularly like those gates either, but at least they have a plausible excuse: child safety. Here, that’s not an issue. Here, we’re talking about two residential neighborhoods, and the only differences between them are demographic.

I don’t exactly understand how they can obstruct a public thoroughfare. Sec. 26-11 of Peoria’s municipal code says, “streets, avenues, alleys and sidewalks of the city shall be kept free and clear of all encumbrances and encroachments, and for the use of the public, and shall not be used or occupied in any other way than as provided in this chapter” (Code 1957, § 36-12). The council communication calls this a “revocable right-of-way use permit,” although I don’t know how one applies for such a permit, or where in the municipal code this type of permit is explained. I have found temporary permits for things like block parties, but all such permits require fees to be paid, and there is no fee mentioned in this council communication.

So, the question is this: what are, specifically, this neighborhood’s “concerns”? And why weren’t these “concerns” put down in writing in the council communication? Are the “concerns” over lower-income residents (or minority residents) driving through the upper-income Coves neighborhood? I’m at a loss as to what else it could be; and if that’s the case, I’m at a lost as to why the city would allow it. But perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation.

City Council, City of Peoria, Traffic | 19 Comments »

Fellow blogger PeoriaIllinoisan recently expressed his dismay that the Peoria Public Library is not open on Saturdays over the summer. Library director Ed Szynaka took the time to respond, explaining that “ALL branches will be open on both Saturday and Sunday when we finish this building alignment.” “This building realignment” refers to the library’s plan to expand some branches, close others, and build a new branch on the north end. But, he added, “we cannot issue the bonds that will let us move forward without the approval of the City Council.”

Then he makes what I consider to be a bit of a snarky comment at the end:

Thank you for supporting the recent vote. 72% of your fellow citizens who voted that also supported that measure. Now getting the City Council to support what the citizens voiced is becoming a very difficult task. Why is no one questioning that issue.

Just for the record, 9,970 votes were cast in favor of the referendum, which was indeed 71.61% of the votes cast (13,923). However, it’s about 14.8% of the total number of registered voters (67,011), and 8.81% of the total Peoria population (113,107). And it’s an advisory referendum, not a binding one. Hence, the need to go through the city council.

I voted for the referendum, but with the understanding that the money to be spent by the library would be subject to city council oversight. It wasn’t a blank check, as Mr. Szynaka seems to imply. I’m willing to pay more for improved library infrastructure and services, but last I looked, the library reps aren’t elected. I don’t want unelected people spending my money with no oversight. I don’t want the city council saying, “oh, the people voted for it, so let’s just let the library do whatever they want with $35 million.”

The best news that came out after that vote was that Gary Sandberg was appointed library liaison. I’m confident that Gary will keep their feet to the fire and make sure that no money is being wasted. And that’s why I’m not “questioning that issue.”

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Library | 1 Comment »