June 2012
« May   Jul »


  • Karrie E. Alms: Amazing insight into the world of politics awaits any reader at pibgorn … from a Demon’s...
  • Tony: Homefield is Dynegy. Dynegy is Ameren. There Charging You twice for the same energy. Do you really thihk $.04...
  • SouthEnder: Also does anyone remember the Velvet Freeze located on Jefferson St, up the street from the Warner Homes....
  • Eric Pollitt: I flew economy class to Hong Kong for Christmas vacation, which is a 14 hour flight. When I got back...
  • Mike: Homefield has been sold to dynery. Google dynegy scandal to see who your new parent is. If this upsets you give...
  • mortified: Fun while it lasted. Godspeed!
  • aaron: your blogging will be missed but i know that your spirit of fairness will remain alive in your other...
  • Jon: CJ, your blog was a revelation and an inspiration. You have a wonderful talent that is an asset to the...
  • Billy Dennis: Of course the Chronicle is done: Screw you. The Chronicle is one of the best researched blogs...
  • Paul Wilkinson: CJ, am sorry you have ended your blog. It was well done. It seems many have given up as we keep...
  • Sharon Crews: Your voice is definitely needed in this community. Thanks for all your insights.
  • emergepeoria: Your blog is great resource to research Peoria issues. I hope you leave it up.
  • BucketHead: I was not suggesting that, I believe the both of you had very strong common sense and that lead to your...
  • C. J. Summers: Without anonymity, there is no courage among my detractors. Take a look back at the wide variety of...
  • Of course the Chronicle is done: Without Sandberg to give stores to the Chronicle there is no Chronicle.

Council approves new district map by 6-5 vote

The Peoria City Council approved a new council district map Tuesday evening. Here it is:

Map “B” was approved by the City Council; click on image to enlarge.

This is the district map known as Map “B.” It was a close vote, with the council as well as the redistricting committee divided. Ayes were Gulley (1st Dist.), Riggenbach (3rd Dist.), Irving (5th Dist.), Akeson (At-Large), Turner (At-Large), and Weaver (At-Large). Nays were Mayor Ardis, Van Auken (2nd Dist.), Spears (4th Dist.), Sandberg (At-Large), and Spain (At-Large).

6 comments to Council approves new district map by 6-5 vote

  • Question

    Curious as to what the “Nays” objected to. Any news on that, CJ?

  • map checker

    The maps were being gerrymandered to support Van Auken. She has honked off the west bluff and much of her district south of McClure, in fact, she specifically tried to draw them out of the district. Spain has someone he wants to get on the council in another district and that person’s house changind district with the varying maps. That person would secure another yes vote for the pet projects society of the council.
    Map B was an impedement to those objectives. Additionally there was a lot of support from neighborhoods trying to stay cohesive. The Nays showed their true colors last night. vote accordingly in the next election

  • soothsayer

    BVA showed her true colors last night. Make no mistake, she voted “NO” in an attempt to save herself in the next election. Her actions are particularly heinous in that she publically told West Bluff neighborhood leaders that she would drop her opposition and support their preferred objectives. Spain and the Mayor voted the way they did to try and save their ally. Hopefully this rollover will convince those fools who still think BVA is a good thing that times have changed and that the 2nd district needs a new representative.

  • “Question”: The council members who voted against it didn’t detail their reasoning last night, but based on previous comments, the reasons they gave are one or both of these:

    • Map B puts just about the entire growth area for the City in one council district: District 5. Van Auken in particular indicated that she felt this gave too much power to one district council person. Other maps split the growth area between districts 4 and 5.

    • The districts are required by law to be roughly equal in population, with no more than 5% deviation. Map B pushes the limits of that deviation in districts 1 and 4. District 1 is nearly 5% under the target population number, and District 4 is nearly 5% over. Spears in particular was concerned that this wasn’t the most equitable distribution and that, while it met the letter of the law, it didn’t really meet the spirit of the law. When dealing with deviation, the rule of thumb is to make the district that is most likely to grow over the next ten years less than the target population so that as it grows, it grows more into proportion with the other districts. Likewise, the district less likely to grow gets more than the target population so that as it loses or stagnates and other districts grow, it also becomes more proportionate over ten years. The problem with Map B is that the district least likely to grow (in many council members’ opinions)–District 1–is the one that has the lowest population within the 5% deviation limit. Other maps that were produced by staff were closer to equal population, but in ways that were unacceptable to the majority of the council. For instance, the “best” map from a purely mathematical perspective was one that split the West Bluff at Main street (south of Main in the 1st district, north of Main in the 2nd). That was unacceptable to West Bluff neighborhoods who wanted the whole West Bluff to remain in one district, preferably District 2. Another map split East Bluff neighborhoods and was thus unacceptable to Riggenbach, et. al.

  • Paul Wilkinson

    the same council members who voted no for the map are ones that have voted yes to spend millions into the warehouse district, citing that this will be an area of growth. Spain in particular noted he was thrilled to start a new neighborhoods. The Major and members of the council have pushed with the county board the wonderful attraction that the museum will be. They hired consultants who will tell them that they are correct. How can one push to use huge amounts of tax money on these, most certainly pet projects, and then believe that there will not be phenomimal growth in the first district? Either the map still needs to be redrawn, or the majority of the council needs to pay back all the tax money they have spent on their personal dreams. You can’t have it both ways. BVA had voted right along with this “plan”.
    the question will be if the W. bluff will still be annoyed with BVA enough by the time of the elections, or will BVA and her backers be able to pump enough money into that area for people to “forget”. That is what happened before. I would predict the reversal of the “nothing to see here” attitude on crime to one of feigned interst and a sudden influx of police to save these poor residents…..welcome to corrupt politics 101.

  • Kohlrabi

    Other than when oting for council redistricting, when has Spain, Ardis, etc. needed another yes vote on the council for their pet projects. 9-2 isn’t good enough for them?