Tag Archives: Peoria Riverfront Museum

New fiction section added to InterBusiness Issues

I enjoyed reading Brad McMillan’s article in InterBusiness Issues this month. It was quite entertaining. I had no idea he was such a good fiction writer, or that IBI had added a fiction section. Check out some of these knee-slapping lines:

The notion that this [museum] project was elitist and was forced on the community from the top down is simply false. Instead, this grass-roots initiative included nine museum groups and hundreds of volunteers…

Grass-roots initiative? Yes, this little “grassroots initiative” was pushed along by common, everyday people like various CEOs of Caterpillar and other large corporations, U.S. Congressmen, State Senators, and local mayors — all of whom are chronicled in Mr. McMillan’s article, by the way. And that “grassroots” marketing campaign that cost almost a million dollars? It was nothing short of miraculous the way the common folks were able to come up with that kind of money. The whole project was a modern-day “Little Engine That Could” story.

Our legacy Build the Block project is funded 55 percent private and 45 percent public….

And if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. The County alone is pumping over $59 million (including bond interest) into the project, the City’s contribution is roughly $17 million (land, TIF proceeds through 2021, improvements to Water Street), we’re getting $9 million in public funds for the parking deck ($4 million in federal highway administration funds and $5 million in state capital funds) — what are we up to now? $85 million? That’s already over 60% of the $140 million project.

…it was the broad-based collaboration between labor groups, museum collaborators, families and business that helped pass a sales tax referendum during the worst part of our economic recession.

…by promising to build an IMAX theater, use 100% local union labor, not bond out more than $40 million, and not bond out until all the private funds were raised — all promises on which they’ve now reneged.

Mike Everett, president of the West Central Illinois Building Trades, tirelessly raised money and put up signs for the Build the Block campaign, knowing that it would provide 250 local construction jobs for his men and women over 25 months.

Except that, since this is a public project now, those construction jobs will have to go to the lowest bidder, and that’s not necessarily going to end up being local laborers. I’m sure the museum supporters are hoping it will end up being local labor, since they promised in their TV ads it would be built with “100% local union labor.”

Through the efforts of so many, the 15-year hole in the heart of Peoria will now be filled with one of the single most important cultural and economic developments in our region’s history.

Fifteen years ago was 1995. Sears was still open and doing business on the block then. They didn’t close the store and move to Northwoods until 1998, so the block hasn’t been a “15-year hole in the heart of Peoria.” But I’m quibbling. Why let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

Lakeview Museum reports deficit on 2008 Form 990

WEEK/WHOI reports that Lakeview Museum lost $1.1 million last fiscal year (Jul. 2008 – Jun. 2009). Lakeview Director Jim Richerson says that’s because (a) they were “spending [money] for architects and engineers to advance the [Peoria Riverfront Museum] project,” and (b) donations “were down in 2008 because many were waiting to see what would come of the new museum project.”

Well, he’s certainly right about donations being down. Lakeview reported receiving $1,424,740 in donations, down 59% from $3,467,217 the prior year. As far as expenditures for the PRM, they say they spent $1,772,196 on the project. It doesn’t say how much of that went to “architects and engineers,” but it does say $704,847 was spent on “Public Awareness/Refere[ndum].” That means 40% of the money Lakeview spent on the PRM went toward an advertising campaign that promised (among other things) an IMAX theater and the use of 100% local union labor to build the museum — promises the museum group has signaled they may not be willing or able to fulfill now. They also reported $83,973 in “lobbying expenditures to influence a legislative body (direct lobbying).”

In other semi-related museum news, the slowly-disappearing Journal Star reports that Peoria Regional Museum Chairman (and former Peoria Mayor) Dave Ransburg is accused of committing fraud against Rubbermaid Inc. when he sold his company, L. R. Nelson Corp., to Robert Bosch Tool Corp. in 2008. Allegedly, Rubbermaid didn’t get paid the money L. R. Nelson owed them, but Ransburg and a couple other board members were compensated. So… Ransburg’s pledge toward the new museum may be in jeopardy.

Promises, Promises: 100% Local Union Labor

What did the museum group promise the local labor force before the April 2009 referendum?

Mike Everett, West Central Illinois Building & Construction Trades Council: “The Build the Block project offers our local construction workforce a tremendous opportunity. Over a 25-month construction schedule, this project will create over 250 jobs and put $1.8 million back into our community. Plus, through an unprecedented agreement, this project’s going to be built with 100% local union labor. Building the Block is more than just building a museum. It’s a chance to strengthen our economy and help our local families.”

From today’s Journal Star:

Though there is no guarantee a local firm will be awarded the construction bid for the Peoria Riverfront Museum, county officials say they will do what they can to promote the use of local resources….

County Board member and museum committee member Mike Phelan said though the total museum project likely won’t be built exclusively by local union laborers, they will build a majority of the project….

Turner Construction – the same Chicago firm that worked on the Peoria Civic Center and also is managing construction of the new terminal at Gen. Wayne A. Downing Peoria International Airport – will serve as the county’s project manager through March 2013. Turner will be paid about $1 million to oversee the estimated $36 to $40 million project.

Another broken promise to add to the list. I’m sure Mike Everett won’t mind. He told the City Council he just doesn’t want to see a big hole when he drives into Peoria from his home in Tazewell County. Well, it looks like he won’t see 100% local union labor filling that hole, either.

What I find amusing is the attempt to make it sound like this hasn’t been a problem from the beginning. The news article states without attribution:

The game changed earlier this year when Peoria County decided to oversee construction of the museum to ensure what is done with public money on a public building on public property is the public’s business.

That responsibility previously fell under the direction of the Peoria Riverfront Museum board of directors, a not-for-profit organization not subject to the Open Meetings Act. As a public entity, Peoria County is bound to accept the lowest responsible bid and that firm may or may not be local, officials acknowledge.

Au contraire: Citizens for Responsible Spending asked about the promise of local union labor before the referendum vote. Here’s the County’s official response back then:

[Q:] If all labor for construction is going to be sourced locally, does this mean no bids?
[A:] If the referendum passes and public dollars are used, the museum portion of the project would have to be bid and construction workers paid at least prevailing wages.

So there never really was a guarantee that it would be 100% local union labor unless all the bids just happened to be won by local contractors.

Note to Morris: Better start downsizing now

According to Word on the Street today, County Board member Steve Morris said, “As long as I’m on the County Board and as long as I’m on the construction committee, I’m absolutely committed to bringing this thing [Peoria Riverfront Museum] in on budget. If material or labor costs go up so much that we can’t, then it’s going to be a smaller building and the plan is going to get scaled back.”

Of course, the budget is based on the museum group meeting their private fund-raising goal, which is still short by several million dollars. Morris might want to start scaling back now.

Oh, who am I kidding? They’re not going to scale back anything. They’re just going to come back to the taxpayers to make up any shortfall, just like they’ve done all along. If the County tries to scale it back, Caterpillar will send them another threatening letter and they’ll fall into line once again. I’m sure the Journal Star has an editorial already written defending putting more taxpayer money into the project, ready to be deployed at the right moment.

“Commitment” from the County Board has a short shelf life.

Journal Star Editorial Board has easy time pummeling straw man

The Journal Star Editorial Board has submitted this fallacy-filled essay about the Block the Bonds initiative to its readers today.

They begin by saying “it was one tall if not impossible order, trying to acquire almost 10,000 signatures in a month’s time to force a referendum on the ballot,” but then later state, “From where we sit this was not too high a bar to climb.” Really? Almost impossible is not too high?

Then they say, “we weren’t surprised that their attempt to give voters a second whack at the museum fell well short of the mark.” Here’s where readers need to beware of a straw man the editors are erecting. No one was trying to get a “second whack at the museum.” This petition drive was a separate issue regarding the type of bonds that would be issued. The editors acknowledge this in some parts of the editorial, and in other parts ignore it, acting as if we were trying to put the sales tax referendum of April 2009 back on the ballot for a “second whack.” More on that later; first, let’s dispense with a couple introductory critiques:

First, to hear some museum critics talk, they represented the silent, seething majority out there, with this petition drive their chance to prove it.

None of the organizers of this petition drive ever said it was a chance to prove we represented some “silent, seething majority.” The editors’ characterization is pure fiction. We said that many people were asking us what could be done about the County Board’s broken promises, and our answer was that this petition drive was the only avenue of protest. We had no idea how many people would be motivated enough to circulate or sign the petition.

They were required to get the signatures of just over 8 percent of the county’s nearly 121,500 registered voters, about 5,000 fewer people than said “no” to the museum a year and a half ago and ostensibly should have been in lockstep here. They managed less than 1.5 percent.

This ignores obvious and significant differences between voters going to the polls and citizens circulating a petition. Let’s start with the fact that votes are secret, but names on a petition are public. Many people refused to sign or circulate the petition, not because they were against the effort, but because they feared retaliation or social stigma. Then there’s the short time frame (30 days), large area to cover (all of Peoria County), high number of signatures required (nearly 10,000), and limited resources (couldn’t launch a half-million dollar media blitz). These and other hurdles are dismissed by the editorial board in the next paragraph:

Some petition passers would have us believe the odds were unfairly stacked against them. From where we sit this was not too high a bar to climb, but in any event second-guessing the will of the electorate isn’t easy and should not be. If it were no referendum could stand, with the disgruntled minority stalling the march of democracy from here to eternity through an endless series of do-overs.

Now, back to the straw man. The electorate voted for the public facilities sales tax in April 2009 based on the commitments and promises made at that time. It is presumptuous to assume the electorate agrees with the significant changes that have been made since that time. Putting one of those changes — the type of bonds issued — on the ballot would have been a way to ascertain the will of of the electorate, not second-guess it.

What in the world do the editors mean when they say, “no referendum could stand” or “an endless series of do-overs”? No referendum would have been overturned or redone. This wasn’t a rehash of the April 2009 referendum; it was a totally separate issue. The editors know this, but they deliberately muddy the waters. Why? Because it’s easier to argue against a straw man than the actual issue. They were all for direct democracy in April 2009 for the sales tax, but are against it in October 2010 for the bond issuance; misrepresenting the issue makes it easier to conceal their hypocrisy.

This group labels itself “Citizens For Responsible Spending,” but “responsible” can be in the eye of the beholder. In fact you can make a case for both types of borrowing proposed for this project.

The case made in April 2009 by the County was for revenue bonds.

No doubt in detractors’ minds they were doing local taxpayers a favor by insisting on revenue bonds because those provide a greater level of protection that local government won’t dip into their pockets should the project fail.

Note that this was the same case the County made in April 2009.

They’re [CFRS] certain this museum is doomed. Our crystal ball isn’t that clear, so we don’t dare presume.

You don’t need a crystal ball to see that this project is doomed. You just need eyes to see. Read the museum’s own pro forma. Read the White Oak Associates master plan, commissioned by the museum group. Witness the fundraising failures of the past decade right up to today by the museum group. You don’t have to be Warren Buffett to figure out this project is a stinker.

Of course revenue bonds also come with a higher interest rate than general obligation bonds, which is what makes the latter the preferred method of borrowing here.

Here’s the problem with this explanation: it doesn’t explain why the County committed to revenue bonds in the first place. Revenue bonds came with a higher interest rate in April 2009 just like they do today. That hasn’t changed. So, if the interest rate were the only criterion, the County would have been touting G. O. bonds all along, right? But they haven’t. They very clearly stated — verbally and in writing — that they were committed to issuing revenue bonds because it was in the best interests of the taxpayers to put the risk on the bond holders, not Peoria County taxpayers. The editors want to ignore this fact and have us accept a simplistic answer.

Even if the CFRS group prevailed, it wouldn’t kill the project.

Here they acknowledge that the referendum would not have stopped the museum, despite their earlier implication that it would have “stall[ed] the march of democracy.”

It would merely force the issuance of a different type of bond that likely would be more costly to taxpayers, not less.

It’s “more costly” only in the sense that having insurance is “more costly” than being uninsured.

Ultimately, there’s no such thing as risk-free, but if past is prologue, the sales tax revenues dedicated to this project – and not dependent on the museum’s performance – should comfortably cover the debt service without tapping taxpayers further.

Interesting that their crystal ball is remarkably clear on this issue, and they’re more than happy to presume a rosy outcome.

Beyond that, should local leaders hold to a rigid course of action even if a better option emerges? One man’s “bait and switch” can be another’s wise and flexible stewardship.

Again, this assumes that a better option has emerged. The option of issuing general obligation bonds has been with us the whole time. If it’s so clearly superior, why was it not promoted in April 2009? Why has this never been asked by the esteemed Journal Star editorial board? In fact, why have the editors never asked any tough questions of the museum group or Peoria County on this issue?

[T]his group [CFRS] has some members who can be mighty unforgiving, holding others to something of a purity test that arguably no one can pass, themselves included. For example, in early September one CFRS leader told this newspaper that some 3,500 signatures had been gathered at that point and “we’re still gaining momentum.”

They’re talking about Brad Harding, who tells me he was misquoted by the Journal Star. He says he only told the reporter how many petitions had been distributed to circulators (350 at that point), not that they had been completed or that 3,500 signatures had been gathered. The reporter evidently misunderstood and drew some erroneous conclusions. Leave it to the Journal Star Editorial Board to use their own paper’s mistake to take a cheap shot at CFRS members. After calling Brad a liar, they try to sound magnanimous by saying “We’d be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt….” Sure, whatever you say.

We, too, sometimes get frustrated with the actions of our public officials, become dissatisfied with the direction in which they’re taking the community. That doesn’t mean you should demonize them, question their integrity or intelligence or independence, proclaim them part of a conspiracy, accuse them of acting illegally or unconstitutionally.

Flashback to June 11, 2007, from the high-minded Peoria Journal Star Editorial Board:

Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis made news of his own last week in chastising Peoria media for casting local events – such as the city’s record-pace murder rate – in too negative of a light. He believes it – the coverage as well as the crime – is harming the community. He wants it to stop, pronto, or else.

“I’ve always considered myself an optimist,” he wrote recently in a local business magazine. “I’m the person who tries to look at the glass as half-full instead of half-empty .”

While we might take issue with hizzoner on a couple of his comments and criticisms – we tend to believe that news is news, a deviation from the norm, and that you get “good” news when unusually “good” things happen – he may be on to something with this glass-half-empty, glass-half-full thing.

So today we launch a new feature, “Through the Mayor’s Looking Glass” – not that we’re suggesting he’s an Ardis in Wonderland, heavens no. We’ll take various subjects and do our media duty, which is look at them from both perspectives: Glass half empty (the negative left) and glass half full (the positive right). Maybe we can change the mayor’s mind.

Enjoy.

What’s half empty : Clearly Peoria’s fit-to-be-tanned mayor owns tissue-skin thin, even relative to former city chiefs who endured their share of media sunshine, too.

What’s half full: Thankfully, many locals seem to prefer an independent press, not PR appendages of the privileged or of government. See: U.S. Constitution, Amendment One.

The Journal Star’s advice appears to be, “do as we say, not as we do.” After all, to do otherwise would be to hold them to “something of a purity test that arguably no one can pass,” right? Back to today’s editorial:

It really is possible to be well-informed on a subject and arrive at a different conclusion than others. Just because someone disagrees doesn’t mean he or she isn’t listening. As newly elected officials inevitably discover, it’s much harder to govern than to yell from the sidelines.

True. Of course, to the best of my knowledge, “Journal Star Editor” is not an elected position, and the job description of an opinion page editor is to, well, “yell from the sidelines.” So I guess all us unelecteds are in the same boat, eh?

Yet this group’s resentment was palpable, regrettable and, from this vantage, not really justified. Who are the “elites running the city”? Certainly those occupying seats on the City Council and County Board weren’t elected by just “elites.” The initial museum referendum didn’t pass with the votes of 15,305 “elites.”

This is a reference to this article, and a quote attributed to me. From that article:

So is Citizens for Responsible Spending a localized tea party? Summers believes there might be similarities, even though he wouldn’t call the Peoria group a tea party extension.

“(Tea parties) talk about wanting to take their country back,” he said. “To some extent, there is a small group of elites running the city, and there is a sense that we want to take our city back.”

My comments were set in a larger context — not speaking just of the museum project. I was speaking of the frustration voters feel when deals are made in secret, then rolled out to the public at the 11th hour without any opportunity for meaningful input. One example I gave was the downtown hotel project, which was kept under wraps for months, then rolled out to the public on a Friday and voted on the following Monday night. Then we were all told that this was in our best interests and not to worry about it.

The museum issue went forward because Caterpillar bullied the City and County into compliance. Notice that the County was trying to protect taxpayers by insisting that private funding be raised before construction would begin. Then came the letter from Cat that they were going to pull out unless construction began this year. Remember that? Suddenly, all taxpayer protections were thrown out the window and the project proceeded full speed ahead.

Going back a few years, the City did its own independent study on whether Mid-Town Plaza would be good for the City and concluded that it wouldn’t. Then David Joseph brought in his own “study” showing it would be a wonderful benefit, and the City Council went along with it. Now it’s sitting there with no major tenant, sucking general funds away from basic services into its failed TIF. That project’s failure was clearly predicted and never should have gone forward, but it did. Now there’s a new TIF being pushed by OSF St. Francis Medical Center for the East Bluff — with the studies being funded by OSF, to be repaid from the TIF when it’s established.

Now, you’re telling me there isn’t a small group of elites running the city to a certain extent? That developers and large employers don’t get what they want from the City when they want it? There’s nothing democratic about these back-room deals, and it’s not resentment about things “not going [my] way.” It’s outrage about a process that excludes the citizens our elected officials are supposed to serve.

I might add that there was a time when newspapers were interested in exposing such back-room deals and advocating for transparency in government. It’s a shame that Peoria’s only newspaper of record apparently approves of such dealings and instead castigates those who question them. Perhaps that’s why readership is down and the paper keeps shrinking.

Such attitudes are counterproductive. Some folks stay in the minority for a reason. Substance matters, but style and tone do, too. When we endorse for political office, as we soon will, we look not only for a knowledge of the issues but an ability to work with and persuade others; for those who ask “to what end?” before they act; for the maturity and perspective that recognize democracy is worthwhile even when it doesn’t go your way.

Thanks for the advice. It might be worthwhile for the editors to reflect on the fact that democratic decisions are not always the right ones, as has been proved many times in our nation’s history, and that persistence in advocating for what is right is also worthwhile.

County Clerk throws out petitions without challenge

There’s an article in the print edition of the Journal Star today that I can’t find online. The headline is “Peoria County tosses ‘Block the Bonds’ petition,” with a subhead, “County Clerk rules Citizens for Responsible Spending failed to comply with Election Code.” Here’s what it says:

There will be no referendum on the issue of the bonds to pay for construction of the Peoria Riverfront Museum.

On Friday, Peoria County Clerk Steve Sonnemaker ruled the petitions filed to place the question on the ballot to be in “nonconformity of the Election Code.”

About 1,700 signatures were filed with the Peoria county Clerk’s Office on Monday requesting a referendum, far short of the 9,849 signatures the Citizens for Responsible Spending needed to withstand challenges to getting a question on the February or April ballots in Peoria County.

In a news release, Sonnemaker said the petitions “on their face, lack the required number of signatures and, therefore, do not comply with the Election Code.”

“The change in policy at this time is due to recent court cases that appear to require that the clerk has a duty to examine petitions to determine whether upon their face they are in apparent conformity with the Election Code. The State’s Attorney has this week addressed these court cases in a letter to the county clerk and advised that the clerk should examine for apparent conformity of the petitions based on the requirements of the Election Code and therefore, no referendum issue should be placed on the ballot,” the release states.

“Previously the clerk did not examine petitions for apparent conformity but relied on petition challenges that would be resolved by a three member Electoral Board as in keeping with policy set by the State Board of Elections.”

But Sonnemaker also said, “any action taken by the county clerk regarding petition conformity may be subject to challenge.”

Citizens for Responsible Spending mounted a monthlong petition drive aimed at halting the issuance of $41.6 [sic] million in bonds to help pay for the construction of the $140 million museum project shortly after the City Council and County Board approved redevelopment agreements allowing for construction to commence.

The group also was concerned that the project’s scope has changed since voters endorsed an April 2009 referendum, pumping $40 million of local sales taxes into the project. Some examples of the changes included the possibility an IMAX-brand theater might not be part of the project, the use of general obligation bonds to finance the project instead of revenue bonds and that state grants to move forward with construction have not yet been received.

The relevant statute is 10 ILCS 5/10-8, which states in part, “petitions to submit public questions to a referendum, being filed as required by this Code, and being in apparent conformity with the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed to be valid unless objection thereto is duly made in writing within 5 business days after the last day for filing the … petition for a public question.”

In court cases People ex rel. Giese v. Dillon (1914), North v. Hinkle (1998), and Haymore v. Orr (2008), Illinois courts have consistently found that the County Clerk has the authority to make certain judgments about whether petitions are “in apparent conformity with the provisions of [the] Act.” One of those judgments has to do with whether enough signatures have been gathered. The Haymore decision states:

[T]he Illinois Supreme Court explained that the responsibility for determining whether an election petition apparently conforms to the law rests with the town clerk. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 275-76. Specifically, the clerk’s duty is “to determine whether, upon the face of the petition, it is in compliance with the law.” Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276. If the petition on its face appears to comply with the statutory requisites, the clerk may not look outside the petition to determine whether in fact it does comply; he must submit the question to the voters.

For example, the Clerk cannot determine on the face of a petition whether the signatures are valid, or whether the person circulating the petitions met the legal requirements to do so.

However, the court continued, had the petition not appeared on its face to have complied with the statutory requisites, the clerk would have had no duty to submit the question to the voters. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276. For example, by examining the face of the petition, a clerk can determine whether it contains the requisite number of signatures. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276. If it does not, the petition is not in apparent conformity with the election statutes and the clerk has no duty to certify the question for the ballot. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276.

So, based on that case law, the State’s Attorney has apparently instructed the County Clerk to throw out the petitions. It’s really a moot point because the petitions couldn’t withstand a challenge anyway. Still, it’s interesting that this is apparently the first time the Peoria County Clerk has made this kind of decision, since the State’s Attorney had to tell him to do it, and the Clerk felt it necessary to publish a press release about it.

IMAX coming to Rave

The Journal Star has the not-so-surprising scoop that IMAX is coming someplace other than the Peoria Riverfront Museum. Oh, IMAX “may” still come to the museum says perpetually poker-faced Dave Ransburg. Now we know it’s not going to happen.

“Build it for me,” she pleads about the “big-city” prospect of getting an IMAX. The PRM won’t build it for her, but Rave will. And without a dime of taxpayer assistance. Imagine.

1,623 signatures not enough to Block the Bonds

In the end, the effort to block the issuance of general obligation bonds fell short. In order to force the issue to a referendum, nearly 10,000 signatures would have to have been collected. The “Block the Bonds” supporters managed to gather 1,623. Considering that the group had only 30 days to gather signatures, and given the complex nature of the petition question (i.e., explaining what general obligation bonds are and why revenue bonds would be preferred), that’s a pretty good showing.

There are a couple lessons to be learned here.

First, the “back-door referendum” option only gives the illusion of offering voters some sort of recourse. In reality, the high number of signatures required in such a short time frame makes it practically impossible to force a referendum. I imagine it was designed that way.

Second, it’s impossible to hold elected representatives and staff accountable for their promises/commitments. Leading up to April 2009, taxpayers were promised that construction would not start until all private money was raised, that revenue bonds would be issued to mitigate the risk to taxpayers, and the maximum bond limit was $40 million. Now we’re starting construction before all the money is raised, general obligation bonds are being issued, and the amount is $41 million. Yet despite these substantial broken commitments, there is no practical recourse for voters. By the time the next election rolls around, the bonds will already have been issued, we’ll already be saddled with debt, and there’s not a thing anyone can do about it.

Some would say “that’s politics,” but I think it’s an affront to the voters. And even though the water is under the bridge on this bonding issue, the incumbents who voted for it should be voted out at the earliest opportunity simply because they’ve proven themselves untrustworthy. Who can believe a word they say?

Panetta criticizes Block the Bonds effort

Journal Star reporter Gary Panetta recycled his blog post of Sept. 2 (also see his follow-up post Sept. 3) as a print article on Sunday. He thinks the Block the Bonds group is “nitpicking and making much over nothing much at all and potentially mucking up a project that could turn out to be a real turning point for the city’s art scene.” I’ll let my comments on the two blog posts stand as my response to his article. I’ve reprinted them below the jump for archival purposes.

Continue reading Panetta criticizes Block the Bonds effort

WCBU news misses the mark

WCBU News this morning said that a successful effort to stop the issuance of general obligation bonds for the museum would be “a moot point” because the County Board could just use a different kind of bond to fund the project. Apparently the reporter fails to understand that the type of bond being used is the issue. If we were to stop the issuance of general obligation bonds and the County issued revenue bonds instead, then we will have prevailed. Hardly a “moot point.”

Usually WCBU does a good job reporting the news, but this story sorely missed the mark.