City to study feasibility of “East Village” TIF

The City Council wants to see if all or part of the East Bluff recently dubbed “East Village” qualifies as a redevelopment area and tax increment financing (TIF) district. The council will vote tonight on whether to pursue a feasibility and housing impact study of the area that stretches from Arcadia to Adams, spanning three council districts. It surrounds, but does not include, the existing MidTown Plaza TIF. Since OSF St. Francis Medical Center is paying for the consultant, this item will pass easily.

Traffic Commission to get new appointee

It’s been a long time coming, but Pat Sullivan is finally being replaced on the Traffic Commission. He resigned in October 2009, ten months ago. Taking his place will be Patrick McNamara, a retiree of Caterpillar and past president of the Uplands Residential Association. He’s since moved out of the West Bluff.

I know Mr. McNamara; he lived down the street from me when he lived in the Uplands, and I got to interact with him at Uplands Residential Association meetings. He was always well-prepared, well-spoken, and reasonable — a really nice guy. I think he’s a great choice for the Traffic Commission.

However, I have to wonder if he’ll ever get a chance to serve, considering the frequency of Traffic Commission meeting cancellations and the rather low view our Public Works Director has of the commission’s role. If the commission is not going to be utilized or supported, or if it is not seen as valuable, perhaps the better solution would be to disband it (ala the Heart of Peoria Commission) instead of wasting these fine citizens’ time.

Walgreens liquor license goes before council tonight

Walgreens wants to sell liquor in all its Peoria stores, but only three of them come before the City Council tonight. The Walgreens locations at 4814 N. Sheridan Rd., 1919 W. Pioneer Parkway, and 2324 W. War Memorial Dr. are requesting approval to sell package liquor. Earlier this month, the City’s Liquor Commission voted 3-1 to recommend approval.

Two Walgreen’s stores at 2515 N. Knoxville Ave. and 3524 N. University St. are not included yet because, according to the Liquor Commission minutes, “the District 2 Councilperson wanted to hold neighborhood association meetings in that District before those site applications were submitted.” In March 2008, the City Council denied (on an 8-2 vote) a package liquor license for Wal-Mart, just down the street from Walgreens on University. The reasons given were neighborhood opposition, concern over potential crime, and concern over expansion of liquor sales.

Walgreens wants to sell liquor “because of customer demand for their convenience, so they can make one stop on their way home as opposed to having to stop at another store,” the Liquor Commission minutes stated.

Journal Star says it’s too late to turn back now… I believe they’ve fallen in love

As I read Sunday’s Journal Star editorial, “Our View: Too late to turn back now on museum project,” I couldn’t help but think of that old Cornelius Bros and Sister Rose song — perhaps that was the intention of the headline writer:

The Journal Star has fallen in love with the museum project. And you know what they say about love: it’s blind. Those in love overlook all the flaws (even major ones) in the object of their desire. Such is the case with the Journal Star overlooking the major problems with the museum project, apologizing for them, justifying them, or just plain refusing to believe them in some cases. One can almost see them gazing at a framed picture of the museum rendering with a dreamy, far-away look in their eyes, wrapping their Caterpillar class ring with angora.

The starry-eyed Journal Star editors are wrong. In fact, it’s not too late to stop the madness. Not a spade of dirt has been turned yet. The museum plans only exist on paper. Yes, a lot of money has been expended, but that’s no justification for spending millions more on a flawed, doomed-to-fail plan that has gone from bad to worse since the referendum. As C. S. Lewis famously said, “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”

The City Council should send the museum folks back to the drawing board Tuesday night by voting against the design concepts and the redevelopment agreement.

Council agenda includes museum redevelopment agreement

The City Council agenda for August 24 includes three items regarding the proposed museum. They include approval of the design concepts, the redevelopment agreement (which includes conveying the land to the County for $1), and vacating certain portions of Liberty and Main streets between Water and Washington streets.

Dave Ransburg, chairman of the Peoria Riverfront Museum, has been meeting privately with City Council members two or three at a time (to avoid an Open Meetings Act violation) to talk about the museum’s plans and to line up at least six votes in favor of the redevelopment agreement and land conveyance.

Entitlement mentality fostering discontent with the city

There was a meeting Wednesday at Friendship House where residents could talk with City and School District officials about their concerns. I was dumbfounded by this one:

Another [attendee] said she was worried for two of her younger children because of a lack of youth activities.

“After 5:30 (p.m.), there’s just nothing for them to do . . . when are you going to give them something to do to keep them off the streets, out of the gangs . . . and be part of the community,” the woman said.

First of all, I can’t believe someone actually said that. There are a lot of ellipses — perhaps she was misquoted or taken out of context. But if that’s an accurate representation of the question, God have mercy on our nation. Think about the philosophy described here: she believes the reason her kids are on the streets and joining gangs is because the government hasn’t provided sufficient youth activities. And “when are you going to give them something” exhibits a textbook definition of “entitlement mentality.” I wonder what she thinks her responsibility is, if anything, as the parent of her children.

That said, there are, in fact, plenty of free entertainment options. We just expanded the libraries in Peoria, so there is more opportunity to borrow and read good books. The libraries even have organized summer reading programs that include prizes. District 150 has just built two new schools with huge outdoor playground areas where kids can play basketball or baseball. The park system has baseball diamonds, tennis courts, frisbee golf courses, and other amenities. Lots of churches have youth activities. The Christian Center has bowling, pool, ping-pong, and other games at low prices. There is no shortage of opportunities for young people to entertain themselves in this city.

I wish someone would have pointed out to her that it’s not the City’s or the School District’s job to entertain her children. The City and School District don’t have the resources or responsibility to raise the children of Peoria — that’s the parents’ responsibility. We can and do provide a number of resources, but parents and children need to take some initiative to avail themselves of those resources.

Here’s the answer she got:

Riggenbach said with dwindling money that it could be difficult to fund such activities.

“I think it’s time the churches stand up and join all the forces, the park district and schools and hit this head-on,” Riggenbach said. “I don’t have an easy answer tonight but I do hear you.”

In essence, Riggenbach reinforced her entitlement mentality. He didn’t dispute it. He just said there wasn’t enough money or church involvement to provide those entitlements. Ironically, he’s a Republican.

The incredible shrinking Journal Star

They’ve taken an axe to the staff. They’ve cut out whole sections of the paper, and reduced some sections to as few as four pages. What else can they cut at this point?

Why, the width of the paper, of course. It seems the paper is getting a bit more narrow:

“Readers will notice that the width of each page of the newspaper will be reduced by 1 1/2 inches [starting in October]. The depth of the pages will remain the same.

“This format is fast becoming the industry standard […] Readers in markets where the narrower format has been introduced have said they prefer the ‘feel’ and portability.”

The current format is about 12½ inches wide, so that works out to about a 12% reduction in newsprint. I wonder if they’ll be lowering their subscription price by 12% to compensate. (Not!) I love the way they try to sell this reduction in content: It’s preferred by readers! It’s more portable! It feels better! Kind of an insult to their readers’ intelligence, no?

I predict the Journal Star will abandon broadsheet publication altogether in a few years, opting for tabloid format. The Chicago Tribune already prints a version of its paper in tabloid format for sale at airport and train station newsstands. And this is the popular format for newspapers “across the pond,” too, meaning it’s becoming the “industry standard” of tomorrow.

And then, eventually, it will be reduced to the size you see on the left.

Yes, Mr. Riggenbach, we were promised an IMAX

Former County Board member and current Third District City Councilman Tim Riggenbach is quoted in the Sunday Journal Star as saying “We were very specifically told it may or may not be an IMAX…. We were not promised an IMAX.”

On Saturday, March 7, 2009, Friends of Build the Block chairman Brad McMillan stated in the Peoria Journal Star: “If The Block is built, we will be able to experience: (1) A state-of-the-art 3-D IMAX theatre that will allow children to dive into a mystical, undersea world during the day and adults to watch current films in the evening….”

On the “Build the Block” website under “Frequently Asked Questions,” it states, “What will the Peoria Riverfront Museum include? The 81,000-square-foot Peoria Riverfront Museum will feature wide-ranging opportunities for learning, culture and fun, including a digital 3-D IMAX Theatre….”

The January 2009 “Build the Block” Newsletter stated this: “The Block’s IMAX Theatre will be a five-stories-tall, 3-D-equipped classroom kids will love!” And this: “‘At The Block, we’ll have even more to share, including expanded exhibits just for kids, a state-of-the art planetarium and a 3-D, digital IMAX Theatre,’ says Lakeview Museum President and CEO Jim Richerson.”

The March 3, 2009, Attendance Analysis put out by the museum group stated: “When analyzing the museum attendance projections listed above, it becomes apparent that the IMAX Theatre is assumed to be the primary generator of attendance at the new museum.” And this: “…museum planners are projecting 146,000 for annual attendance at the Peoria Riverfront Museum IMAX….”

Pay close attention to this one. The March 9, 2009, Sustainability paper published by the museum group stated:

On average, Lakeview Museum receives approximately $600,000 per year through earned income, including general memberships, gallery admissions, planetarium admissions, museum store, book court and book sales, museum schools and programs, and rental of museum space. This represents approximately 40 percent of total annual income. The remaining 60 percent of annual income, or approximately $900,000 per year, is categorized as support income. The support income is generated from the museum endowment, annual fund drives, exhibit sponsors, other miscellaneous fundraising events, and grants received from various foundations and governmental agencies.

In the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum Pro Forma, the relationship between earned income and support income is shifted, with earned income now representing 65 percent of the total and support income representing only 35 percent of the total. This change is due to the presence of the IMAX Theatre in the new museum, projected to generate almost $1 million per year in operating income. The concessions area adjacent to the IMAX Theatre also would be a new source of income at the Peoria Riverfront Museum and is projected to generate close to $300,000 annually.

Finally, there’s this lengthy report from January 8, 2009, titled, “Report to the County Board – Peoria Riverfront Museum Policy Considerations.” It comes with a cover memo addressed to none other than “Timothy Riggenbach, Chairman, Finance Legislative Study Committee.” In the 241-page document, which I’m sure Riggenbach read, are the results of a phone survey conducted by the County, including the questions asked. Here’s one:

The Peoria Riverfront Museum will enhance educational opportunities for all of Central Illinois. The museum will house collections, a state-of-the-art planetarium, and an IMAX theater [emphasis added]. The adjacent Caterpillar Visitor’s Center will welcome visitors from around the world. The project will create 250 union construction jobs, and upon completion will generate nearly $14 million annually to our local economy. The museum project is 86% funded. To complete the project, would you support an increase in the sales tax of one quarter of one percent in Peoria County? This is 25 cents on every $100 of retail purchases.

The report also includes the “Proposed PRM Operating Budget (Stable Year)” which is replete with references to IMAX. Oh, and it also includes the museum’s pro forma which states in no uncertain terms, “IMAX Revenue.”

So, with all due respect, Mr. Riggenbach, yes, we were promised an IMAX, your historic revisionism notwithstanding. It was promised to us by museum officials in official public documents. Furthermore, IMAX was essential to the attendance and revenue projections that were used to sell the museum to the County and the community.

What’s most surprising is that Riggenbach’s statement went unchallenged in the Journal Star’s article. Promises of an IMAX are so well-documented, I can’t believe anyone seriously believes there’s a question about it. Perhaps Mr. Riggenbach and the Journal Star want us to believe the entire County of Peoria just imagined we were promised an IMAX — that it was some sort of mass psychosis. Maybe we were all hypnotized by aliens.

L. A. Times uses value-added analysis to rate public school teachers

Public school students are graded and tested all the time. Schools are scored too — California rates them in an annual index.

Not so with teachers.

Nationally, the vast majority who seek tenure get it after a few years on the job, practically ensuring a position for life. After that, pay and job protections depend mostly on seniority, not performance.

That’s from The Los Angeles Times, which recently published a fascinating article about evaluating teachers (read it here). They used a statistical method known as “value-added analysis” to rate teacher effectiveness in Los Angeles public schools. They explained that, “Value-added analysis offers a rigorous approach. In essence, a student’s past performance on tests is used to project his or her future results. The difference between the prediction and the student’s actual performance after a year is the ‘value’ that the teacher added or subtracted.”

The Times obtained seven years of math and English test scores from the Los Angeles Unified School District and used the information to estimate the effectiveness of L.A. teachers — something the district could do but has not.[…]

Among the findings:

  • Highly effective teachers routinely propel students from below grade level to advanced in a single year. There is a substantial gap at year’s end between students whose teachers were in the top 10% in effectiveness and the bottom 10%. The fortunate students ranked 17 percentile points higher in English and 25 points higher in math.
  • Some students landed in the classrooms of the poorest-performing instructors year after year — a potentially devastating setback that the district could have avoided. Over the period analyzed, more than 8,000 students got such a math or English teacher at least twice in a row.
  • Contrary to popular belief, the best teachers were not concentrated in schools in the most affluent neighborhoods, nor were the weakest instructors bunched in poor areas. Rather, these teachers were scattered throughout the district. The quality of instruction typically varied far more within a school than between schools.
  • Although many parents fixate on picking the right school for their child, it matters far more which teacher the child gets. Teachers had three times as much influence on students’ academic development as the school they attend. Yet parents have no access to objective information about individual instructors, and they often have little say in which teacher their child gets.
  • Many of the factors commonly assumed to be important to teachers’ effectiveness were not. Although teachers are paid more for experience, education and training, none of this had much bearing on whether they improved their students’ performance.

I highly recommend reading the whole article. A question for teachers and administrators who read my blog: what do you think of value-added analysis, and using this as a tool to evaluate teachers? The article concedes that it should not be the sole method of evaluation, but suggests that it would be beneficial if it made up 30-50% of a teacher’s review.