Daily Archives: November 6, 2008

City Council, City of Peoria

Council greasing the skids for Big Al’s move

37 Comments

On the agenda for Monday’s City Council meeting is a change to the city’s adult business ordinance that would allow Big Al’s to move to a new location while keeping their “grandfathered in” status. The council communication explains:

Since approximately 1978, the City has had an adult business ordinance that restricted the locations of adult businesses by limiting their distances from other adult businesses, from churches and schools, and from residentially zoned properties. There has always been at least one adult business that has not been in compliance with the ordinance but has been grandfathered and, therefore, allowed to continue at its present location. The attached ordinance would allow such a business to relocate, obtain an adult use license for a property which brings the location more into compliance. The relocation may provide an opportunity for the City to take advantage of a significant development opportunity.

In other words, Big Al’s adult use license would follow them to a new location. They wouldn’t have to reapply. And they continue to be “grandfathered in.” Couple this with the liquor license that was requested for 414 NE Hamilton (which the Liquor Commission didn’t approve or deny), and I think you see where this is going.

Once again, oblique reference is made to “a significant development opportunity,” which is rumored to be either an expansion to the Pere Marquette or a new hotel that will be connected to the Civic Center somehow (pedestrian bridge?). In any case, the deal apparently hinges on allowing Big Al’s to move without giving up their adult use license, so the city is doing everything in its power to facilitate that.

I’m concerned that by doing this, the council will be invalidating their adult use ordinance. What I mean is, they’re changing the ordinance to benefit one business. If they do this for one adult business and not another, with no consistent or reasonable justification for such discrimination, the ordinance becomes arbitrary and capricious, and ultimately unconstitutional.

For example, in 2002, the owner of 617 W. Main St., Frank Genusa, also had a grandfathered-in business called Playmate Video. When he changed tenants to a business called The Dungeon Music and Apparel that sold the same kind of adult material, the city revoked his adult use license, saying the grandfathering no longer applies — even though it was the same landlord, the same type of business, and the same location. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that place is gone, but you see my point: the rules seem to be rigidly applied to one owner, but easily changed for another.

The next year, the strip club now known as Elliott’s started its effort to get an adult use license at its North University Street location. The city fought that by denying a Class A liquor license for the establishment (a requirement for selling liquor if the establishment also holds an adult-use license). That resulted in a lawsuit that eventually cost the taxpayers several thousand dollars, and they got their liquor license after all. Again, the rules are applied aggressively to one business, but bent and rewritten for another.

Why the double standard? This “significant development opportunity” must be a real doozy. I wonder when the public will be let in on the council’s little secret.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Circumvention of voters nearly complete

22 Comments

One of the final steps toward issuing bonds through the Public Building Commission (PBC) for new public school construction will take place Monday night as the Council approves the siting of the new schools. District 150’s ability to access PBC funds was made possible by the efforts of local state representatives George Shadid (now retired) and Aaron Schock. And the reason it was made possible was blatantly to circumvent the voters.

The school board could have put a binding referendum on the ballot asking voters to approve funding for their building plans. Ask anyone at the district or your state representatives why they didn’t do that, and they’ll tell you that they believe a school bond referendum would never pass. Hence, the “need” to go around the voters and get the money through the PBC.

I have a fundamental problem with that process. You have to ask yourself why they think a referendum wouldn’t pass. Consider, for instance, that voters in communities near Peoria have recently approved similar referenda, and voters in Peoria recently approved by a large margin capital funding for library improvements. So you can’t honestly argue that a referendum would never pass.

If a referendum were to fail, it would not be because voters don’t want to make needed upgrades to schools, but because they don’t like the district’s method of “upgrading” them. In other words, voters would use the power of the purse to approve or disapprove of the district’s building plans. For instance, consolidating Irving and Kingman schools into a new primary school building next to Lincoln Middle School and Woodruff High School probably wouldn’t have garnered enough votes because the residents didn’t want to see those neighborhood schools close. Attempts to build a new Glen Oak School at Glen Oak Park would certainly not have gained enough votes because residents very loudly and clearly stated they didn’t want the school sited there.

By circumventing the voters, it not only took away the residents’ decision regarding funding, but also its influence in the design and siting of the new buildings. So when the council communication on the agenda for Monday night says, “The concerns of neighbors have been addressed in the siting process,” that’s really not true. There were public meetings, after which the school board did exactly what they said they were going to do in the first place (with the notable exception of changing the site for Glen Oak School due to a lawsuit that effectively blocked an intergovernmental agreement between the park district and school district). There were public hearings about the design of the schools after all the decisions had been made and there was no intention of changing them.

Public input was a sham because the school board didn’t have to listen to the public or win their approval. They had their construction money regardless, thanks to their being granted access to PBC funding. So they did what they wanted regardless of public opinion. And that’s why you don’t see many people attending D150 public hearings or board meetings these days. Doing so is like a broken pencil: pointless.

City Council, City of Peoria, Crime

National Night Out moving back to August

Leave a comment

They gave it the old college try, but holding the National Night Out Against Crime in September this year apparently didn’t go over too well. In an online survey, over half the respondents requested that the event go back to its original date of the first Tuesday in August:

Those in favor of the traditional August date most often wrote that the September date conflicted with after school events, sports, and student homework assignments. Several of those respondents added that the September date brought an early nightfall which caused a premature end to their events. Those in favor of the September date cited favorable weather and more participation by elderly citizens. (NOTE: The National Association of Town Watch (NATW), which sponsors this event, also conducted a pilot date change in Texas this year. NATW has announced that NNO will continue to be held on the first Tuesday in August.) As a result of the majority date preference, City staff is recommending the NNO for the City of Peoria be set for the first Tuesday in August.

There were 94 respondents to the survey, and 53 of them voted for the August date. Since this is a national event, as the name implies, it makes sense to me to hold it on the same date as everyone else. The council will make the final decision at its next meeting on Monday, Nov. 10, at 6:15 p.m.