Tag Archives: Peoria Times-Observer

Peoria Times-Observer saying goodbye

The Peoria Times-Observer, formerly known as simply “The Observer,” will no longer be published after next month, the weekly paper announced today:

The April 28 edition of the Peoria Times-Observer will be the final edition of the newspaper, which is delivered free of charge to homes in North Peoria and Dunlap.

Citing the changing media landscape, TimesNewspapers’ publisher Linda Smith Brown announced the publication’s cessation.

I think we all knew that the Times-Observer’s days were numbered as soon as GateHouse Media bought them. If not then, then certainly after they consolidated their offices into the Journal Star building. Seriously, there was no reason to have two separate papers covering Peoria when they’re both owned by the same company. That’s not exactly what you’d call competition.

If there’s a silver lining, it’s that a new newspaper will be started in Woodford County. It will be called Woodford Times and be produced by DeWayne Bartels and Tom Batters, so neither of them will be out of work due to the Times-Observer ceasing publication.

Saturday must-see links

If you haven’t already seen these this week, you’ll want to check them out:

  • Outside the Horseshoe for January 26, 2010, from WCBU 89.9 FM radio. Tanya Koonce has a conversation with Peoria County Administrator Patrick Urich, Peoria County State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons, and County Board Members Andrew Rand (Dist. 4) and Stephen Morris (Dist. 10) about the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum project. What we can deduce from the conversation here is that, at least in the county’s perception, Lakeview Museum is trying to dominate and control the project. I suspect their perception is true; Caterpillar had similar problems working with Lakeview which led to their decision years ago to put their visitor center in a separate building instead of sharing space in the museum.
  • Blacktop Reform from DeWayne Bartels of the Peoria Times-Observer. You may be surprised to learn that the next time you want to get your driveway blacktopped, you’ll have to pay a lot more money and have fewer contractors from which to choose. The County Board is trying to run non-union blacktop paving contractors out of town. Let this be a lesson to current and future Board members: do your homework before you vote!
  • School Board Member Laura Petelle’s thoughts on the final candidate for District 150’s New Superintendent. She wants to assure everyone that the process this time was “far different and more comprehensive” than the past. In other words, they did a better job of vetting the candidates than the board that hired Kay Royster did. That should give residents some comfort.
  • Racism alleged within the Peoria County Democratic Central Committee. Rachael Parker is a sitting Peoria Board of Education member running for a seat on the Peoria County Board, and her campaign manager and communications director sent out a press release accusing local Democrats of being racist. They also questioned why the Peoria Journal Star did not interview Parker. I’m wondering how the Journal Star got a quote from Parker for their January 15 story if they didn’t interview her.

Happy reading/listening!

Crime creeps north

Residents of North Peoria are “startled” by recent crimes in their neighborhoods. What an interesting word the Times Observer chose to describe residents’ reaction to crime: startled. It means “to frighten suddenly; to alarm; to surprise.” In other words, they didn’t expect there to be any crime up where they lived, and are shocked — startled — to discover that crime knows no boundaries.

Mike Wisdom, president of the Chadwick Estates Neighborhood Association, is quoted as saying, “We always felt isolated from crime.” Peoria Police captain Mike Scally said, “When you live in an area of low crime, a little bit of crime is alarming.” Peoria City Councilman George Jacob agreed that “crime in Peoria’s far-flung neighborhoods is ‘surprising.'”

The converse, of course, is that this crime wouldn’t have been surprising elsewhere in Peoria, such as the south side or on the bluffs. But because it’s all the way out here, it’s notable. Conventional wisdom is that these “far-flung neighborhoods” popped up as an effort to flee crime and deterioration (real or perceived) in the older parts of Peoria.

Incidentally, there are those who would prefer a Balkanized Peoria. I’ve heard the sentiment expressed that we should keep crime generally contained on the south side with the bluffs acting as buffers so that everyone living north of the bluffs can live in safety. Whether or not residents feel that’s the way it should be, it is generally accepted as the way things are.

Crime statistics support this view. A quick look at the CrimeView Community website shows the following total numbers of crimes by council district in the last 90 days:

  • District 1: 1,217
  • District 2: 507
  • District 3: 491
  • District 4: 370
  • District 5: 199

By now, you’re no doubt saying, “So what? Tell us something we don’t know. This is all so obvious.” And I guess that’s the point of my post. We’ve accepted this state of affairs in our city. It’s the way it is. It’s the way it’s been for so long, we’ve become complacent. I can hear the objections: “Every city has problems with inner city crime.” “We’re doing everything we can.”

Here’s a thought experiment. Ask yourself, if the property damage and home invasion crimes that happen on the south side suddenly started happening in the fifth district with the same frequency, what would be the City’s reaction? Would any additional pressure be put on the police department? Would they be given any additional resources? How about Code Enforcement? Planning & Growth? Public Works?

Should we be satisfied with the status quo? Are we really doing the best we can to reduce crime?

How long will Times-Observer last?

GateHouse Media, which now owns both the Journal Star and the Times-Observer, has consolidated the two newspapers’ offices:

TimesNewspapers’ office at 1616 W. Pioneer Parkway, Peoria, will be closed Friday.

The TimesNewspapers’ office, which houses the Peoria Times-Observer, will move to a new location at 1 News Plaza, Peoria, 61643.

Could this be the beginning of the end for the venerable Times-Observer? Given GateHouse Media’s financial woes, including a $10.3 million loss in the first quarter of 2009, I think it’s just a matter of time before the Times-Observer is discontinued. Mike Reed, GateHouse Media’s Chief Executive Officer, said recently, “Our cost controls were very good in the first quarter. However, we will be even more aggressive over the next couple of quarters, as we weather this economic downturn. We remain highly focused on liquidity and improving our cash position.”

If I were a betting man, I’d bet that GateHouse will discontinue the Times-Observer by the end of the year, but retain DeWayne Bartels as a reporter/columnist for the Journal Star. I’d be happy if my prediction didn’t come true, however, and the Times-Observer continued as a separate publication. But I can’t help but feel like the handwriting is on the wall.

Times-Observer weighs in on con-con post

The Times-Observer did a nice editorial piece in response to my post-election Constitutional Convention reaction.

Before getting into the meat of it, let me explain my most-criticized comment, which was: “Well, I don’t want to hear any complaints about state government from anyone who voted against the Con Con. You had your chance to improve things, and you blew it.” Some have taken this to mean that I want to somehow limit their free speech to complain about state government. Not so. Complain away. I just said I don’t want to hear it, which is another way of saying you’ll get no sympathy from me.

Now, as for the arguments against the Constitutional Convention (“con-con,” for short), here’s the thing I don’t understand. What harm would it have done?

According to the Times-Observer, “we cannot trust anything coming out of Springfield”; they then go on to compare a con-con to the electricity deregulation debacle. The Peoria chapter of the League of Women Voters’ spokesperson said, “Special interests, current political dysfunction in Springfield and party politics may gain control of the delegate election/selection process, as well as deliberations. Results may be unrepresentative of voters’ concerns.”

These statements indicate to me that these people evidently do not know how a con-con works. Delegates to the convention cannot be legislators. There would be a separate election of delegates. Furthermore, the proposed constitution that would come out of the con-con would have to be approved by the voters. That’s why it’s not anything like the electricity deregulation debacle.

Those who worry that “results may be unrepresentative of voters’ concerns” are showing a lack of faith in voters, who are ultimately they themselves. They’re saying that democracy is too scary, and there are too many potential pitfalls. Better to stick with what we’ve got. I, for one, am glad that our founding fathers didn’t have such fear when they decided to write the U. S. Constitution instead of sticking with the Articles of Confederation.

But, you might object, the voters are the ones who gave us Michael Madigan and Emil Jones — how can we trust such voters? I would direct you to a political map of Illinois and see how the district boundaries are drawn. It’s a textbook case of gerrymandering. The legislators carve up the state in such a way that they are literally choosing their voters, instead of the voters choosing their legislators. But with a statewide referendum, gerrymandering loses its power. It’s a straight popular vote.

Ironically, gerrymandering is an issue that the League of Women Voters is concerned about. Yet they shot down a process whereby they could tackle the problem head-on. They would rather stick with the status quo — where redistricting reform bills are sent to the “Rules” committee to die — rather than risk a con-con.

And that’s really their whole argument: it’s too risky. Well, life is risky. Voting against the con-con didn’t alleviate Illinoisans of any risk. It just ensured that the current risks would remain, and they have.

The Times-Observer quotes Shakespeare as saying, “The devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape,” as if one option is the devil and the other isn’t. The truth is, the devil is in both options, pro and con. Voters simply chose the devil they knew instead of the devil they didn’t know.