Tag Archives: Second District

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria

No, I’m not running this time

8 Comments

I’ve had several people ask me if I’ll be running for the second district Peoria City Council seat in 2013. The answer is no. I’d once again like to thank all of those who supported me the last time I ran. I may consider another run in the future. But after evaluating my obligations at home and work, I believe this just isn’t the right time for me.

So far, in the second district, Chuck Grayeb has announced he’s running and incumbent Barbara Van Auken hasn’t said one way or the other if she’s running. Assuming she does run, and assuming no one else enters the race, I’ll be supporting Grayeb. If you’ve followed my blog from the beginning when Grayeb was still on the council as an at-large representative, you know that I don’t see eye-to-eye with him. But there’s no doubt in my mind that he would be a better representative of the second district than the incumbent. Van Auken has been instrumental in dismantling the Historic Preservation efforts of the city and eviscerating the Heart of Peoria Plan in principle and in practice. She has been complicit in squandering our tax money and public resources on baubles and trinkets. Crime around Bradley University has increased, and the Bradley top brass has responded by increasing patrols by Bradley police officers; yet I’ve heard nothing and seen no action from our city council representative on the matter.

Grayeb came in sixth, very close behind the fifth-place finisher in the at-large election. He’s been on the council before and obviously has a great deal of support. He’s susceptible to being suckered into bad deals for city taxpayers (e.g., he voted for MidTown Plaza), so we’ll have to hold his feet to the fire on those things. But no one can doubt his commitment to public safety and historic preservation. Grayeb is by far the better candidate in the second district at this time.

2009 Campaign

Second district race heats up

26 Comments

These anonymous flyers started appearing on porches in neighborhoods surrounding Bradley University today.

The flyer implies that Second District City Council candidate Curphy Smith and his campaign chairman Paul Wilkinson are in cahoots with attorney Jeff Hall who represents the Sigma Nu Fraternity in their lawsuit against Second District incumbent Barbara Van Auken. The unsigned flyer says the lawsuit has “become a driving catalyst for for Curphy Smith’s campaign waging Bradley students against regular citizens of the Second District.”

The flyer goes on to quote an e-mail from Jeff Hall to Bradley students encouraging them to vote for Smith and alleging that Van Auken will “exact revenge on the Greek system at Bradley” if reelected. Finally, it states that the Smith campaign is providing free rides to the Election Commission for early voting and alleges “impermissible electioneering may be occurring . . . within 100 feet of the Election Commission.”

When asked for his response to the flyer, Smith stated via e-mail, “While Councilwoman Van Auken’s decision to run a negative campaign is unfortunate, by no means was it unexpected. I fully expected these types of tactics and expect she will continue them. I have committed to an issue-based campaign against Barbara VanAuken as a city council representative. Instead of distracting the residents the 2nd district with negative attacks and muddying the waters with lies, I would like to discuss how we can make the 2nd district and the city of Peoria a better place for all of us.”

Van Auken, however, said via e-mail that she had not seen the flyer before I e-mailed a copy of it to her. She went on to say, “It was not authorized by my campaign or it would have so indicated. I have no idea who may have sent it. The only message I agree with or endorse is the one stating my desire to continue the progress that’s been made in the Second District as outlined in my authorized campaign literature.”

I talked to Wilkinson on the phone, and he stated in response to the charges on the flyer that the Smith campaign is “not involved in the lawsuit.” They are not trying to pit Bradley against other Second District residents, he continued. “We’re trying to bring people together.” He also said that Jeff Hall is not a member of the campaign staff, and that Hall acted on his own when writing the e-mail asking Bradley students to support Smith.

Hall did not return a request for comment.

I checked with Peoria’s Election Administrator Tom Bride, and he said there was nothing illegal about giving people a ride to a polling place. He also wasn’t sure that a car could get within 100 feet of the entrance to the room where early voting takes place.

My take: I take Barbara at her word that she didn’t authorize this flyer. But it’s obviously a Van Auken supporter that created and is distributing it. Van Auken should condemn the flyer as dirty politics and make it clear that she does not approve this kind of “help” from her supporters. I’m sure she would expect the same of Smith if the tables were turned.

Likewise, Hall’s e-mail, assuming it is quoted accurately, is objectionable. I would also like to see Smith condemn the personal attacks on Van Auken as dirty politics as well.

It’s unfortunate that the person who created this flyer has decided to make the Bradley issue even more polarizing than it already is. Note the choice of language: “Bradley students” versus “regular citizens of the Second District” (emphasis added). I guess Bradley residents are irregular citizens, eh? Or second-class citizens, perhaps? That’s not the way to win friends and influence people. I know it can be challenging living near college students, but I don’t believe antagonizing them, marginalizing them, or being condescending toward them is going to improve things.

And, this probably goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: the person who created and distributed this unsigned, anonymous flyer is a coward. It’s easy to sound tough when you hide behind anonymity.

City of Peoria, Streets

Grant money sought for Main Street improvements

11 Comments

main-street-improvement-grant-032409On Tuesday night’s City Council agenda is a grant application to the Federal Highway Administration’s “Highway Safety Improvement Program” to improve Main Street from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue (see map to the right). This corridor would be eligible for funding because it is a “high accident location” and because it has a “high cost benefit ratio,” according to the request for council action.

The request goes on to explain the types of strategies that could be used to improve safety along the corridor. They include:

…narrowing this section of Main Street from 5 lanes to 3 lanes with paint striping, installing speed feedback signage, installing additional speed limit signs, installing flashing crosswalk signs, and installing improved curve signage near Crescent Avenue. Additionally, parking and/or loading zones could be considered where applicable and needed, and would help narrow the roadway. Main Street from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue, as part of the larger Main Street Corridor, has recently been studied with the idea of incorporating New Urban concepts, which would make it more attractive and pedestrian friendly. All these proposed safety strategies fit into the larger picture for the roadway and would not prohibit any future improvements.

If the request is approved, the city will seek a $48,500 grant. The application has to be in by April 10, and awards will be announced in July. All grant money awarded will be for use in 2010.

City of Peoria, Streets

The Main Street circle game

29 Comments

The Journal Star has article today on why Councilmember Van Auken is abandoning plans to improve Main Street:

“We don’t have anything in the budget this year because it’s a ‘maintenance budget,’ ” 2nd District City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken said Tuesday.

Van Auken said she anticipates in 2009 for more discussions to occur among city officials and neighborhood leaders within the West Bluff Council on how to handle improvements along Main. She said it could be several years before any physical changes along the busy street occur.

That should be “several more years.” This has been pursued ever since the Heart of Peoria Plan was completed in 2002, so we’re at six years, four consultants/studies and counting. But by all means, let’s spend another year discussing it. Maybe someone will say something different.

“I think our goal would be to have each of the neighborhoods in the West Bluff come forward with their ideas on what they would like to see in terms of traffic flow and patterns,” Van Auken said.

Again? How many times will we be going through this exercise? I would submit that the city has gotten more public/neighborhood input on this project than any other road project in the history of Peoria. We’ve had charrettes, we’ve had public meetings, we’ve talked as neighborhood associations and submitted the results of our discussions to the West Bluff Council, and on and on and on. How many more times (years?) are we going to rehash this thing?

The council on Dec. 9 will simply be asked to vote on whether to receive and file the Hanson study, which was completed several months ago.

By 2010 when this is reconsidered, we’ll of course need to do another study with another consultant, which will then get received and filed, and we’ll go round and round and round in the circle game….