Daily Archives: January 24, 2006

Ray LaHood

Firefly Energy given military contract via controversial “earmark”

1 Comment

The Associated Press reports that Peoria-based Firefly Energy, Inc., has “landed a $2.5 million contract to develop its new generation of lighter, more powerful batteries for the military.”  Firefly is a pretty new company, founded in May 2003.  They use technology developed by Caterpillar to replace the lead plates found in batteries with a lighter, longer-lasting, and more ecologically-friendly material.

The part of the AP report I found interesting, though, was this:

LaHood said he secured Firefly’s contact through an addition to the defense bill known as an “earmark.” The practice has drawn criticism during recent debate over ethics reform because opponents say it breeds corruption, providing millions of dollars for lawmakers’ pet projects.

“Earmarks” are getting a lot of press these days. Congressman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) gave his “Porker of the Week” award to Congress for earmarks in the federal transportation bill for “the bridge to nowhere“ last November. The bridge in question costs $320 million and connects the town of Ketchikan (pop. 8900) with the island of Gravina (pop. 50) in Alaska. And it was John McCain (R-Ariz.) who said that earmarks “breed corruption.”

Being a curious person by nature, I wanted to find out how these dastardly “earmarks” get into bills in the first place. It appears no one knows except congresspersons and lobbyists. But somehow, through some secret process, members of Congress can direct money to individual companies by inserting these “earmarks” into huge appropriations bills. The earmarks are not debated and thus need not be defended.

So, I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is, do the ends justify the means?  Obviously this military contract for Firefly is good for Peoria, but I imagine the bridge in Ketchikan is good for the economy there, too.  Where do we draw the line? 

City Council, Heart of Peoria Plan, Southtown

Council roundup: Southtown deal approved

The council did the right thing by not delaying the vote on the Southtown project any longer.  The motion to defer was overturned and the council voted 10-1 to approve the project.

I wasn’t too thrilled about delaying the vote at the request of Methodist or OSF, but I thought Gary Sandberg had some excellent points regarding the suburban design of the building and the proposed density of the development.  Whatever is built in Southtown should be required to conform to the Heart of Peoria Plan.  If there is no process to facilitate that requirement, the Heart of Peoria Commission and the City Council should develop one.

Annexation, City Council

Council roundup: Crusen’s request to leave city deferred

Crusens wants their newly-acquired Hunts property at the corner of Farmington and Park roads to be annexed to West Peoria.  To do that, they have to get permission from the City of Peoria to disconnect from the city.  City of Peoria staff recommends denying that request, so Crusens asked for a one-week deferment.

After some acrimonious comments from Councilman Morris (who clearly is against letting the Hunts property out of the city), the council approved the deferral.

City Council, Southtown

The courtesy of a deferral

Second-district councilperson Barbara Van Auken laid out her case for granting “the courtesy of a deferral” to OSF, Methodist, or any business that has shown a long-term commitment to the city/community.  She wanted to make it clear that by doing so, she’s not favoring one project over another.  I believe her.

But, I can’t help but think she may have been used by the hospital(s) to affect the outcome anyway, however unintentionally.  Take a look at this report from the Journal Star today:

More than likely, the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board will only approve one such acute-care facility for the Peoria area, as it recently did in Springfield with two competing proposals.

There, Select Medical was not chosen because it filed second.

Notice the timing issue — “Select Medical was not chosen because it filed second.”  Could it be that the one week deferral provided Methodist with the ability to get in their application for a “certificate of need” first?  And, if so, wouldn’t that give them quite an advantage in the competition for a state permit?

I could be all wet.  I hope I am.  But I’ll be interested to see the dates on the applications.

City Council, Renaissance Park, Southtown

Methodist to city: We don’t need your help

The Journal Star reports today that Methodist Medical Center, along with RehabCare of St. Louis, is going to try to bring a long-term, acute-care facility to Renaissance Park (f.k.a. The Med-Tech District).  This is the same kind of facility Select Medical would like to bring to Southtown.  However, the state will likely approve only one such facility for Peoria, so we have a competition on our hands.

The City is apparently in favor of Methodist, as evidenced by its deferral of approving the sale of the land in Southtown to Select Medical last week.  But Methodist is saying (publicly, at least), “Thanks, council, but we can compete in the marketplace without your help”:

“We have no concerns [about Select Medical’s bid]. Whoever is telling you that is a liar,” [Methodist CEO Michael] Bryant said. “If they beat us to the punch, they win. This isn’t a city issue. It comes down to a certificate of need issue. The best thing is for the city not to take any sides.”

I couldn’t agree more.  The council should reconsider the deferral tonight and vote to let the Southtown sale go through.

Peoria Disposal Company

Peoria families starting to rally against proposed PDC expansion

2 Comments

Way back in November, the City Council heard a presentation from Peoria Disposal Company (PDC) about how they want to expand their landfill in Pottstown, just outside the city limits.  They didn’t have to do this presentation, since it’s a Peoria County decision, but they did it anyway as a courtesy to the city residents who will be affected (or unaffected, they argued) by this expansion.

At that time, they mentioned they were going to be filing an application to expand, and that a public hearing would take place 90-100 days later.  That would put it roughly in February 2006, which is almost upon us.

So I wasn’t surprised when I got this e-mail from a concerned citizen:

We are very concerned regarding PDC’s proposed expansion of it’s toxic waste dump just down the road in Pottstown. We’ve found that many Peorians don’t even know this site exists and the County Board is now tasked with deciding if it can expand even further.  Key facts:

-The toxic landfill is one of only 15 in the US; 14 states ship their toxic waste here.

-The dump sits atop an aquifer; the company claims their plastic liners will last “centuries” but that promise seems highly unrealistic and certainly unproven

-PDC is Peoria County’s second highest facility contributing to cancer risks (160,000 lbs annually); (source: Scorecard.com)

-PDC ranks 19 of all US companies with the highest toxic chemical releases in the nation (20 million pounds annual; 1st in Peoria County). (source: Scorecard.com)

-PDC is ranked #4 air polluter in Peoria County (source: Scorecard.com)

-According to its website the Peoria County Board only requires PDC to notify residents within 250 feet of the site and one notice in the Journal Star. The Board indicates this is a “very public”, “many step” process to “inform” and “educate” the public (see website link). We disagree.
http://www.co.peoria.il.us/display.php?section=county&page=pdc

-Lastly, the company has a good reputation and the owners are respected locals.  However, our common sense concern about the health and safety of our children is more compelling than the owner’s reputation. Furthermore, the company can always sell to a non-local corporation, putting Peoria and our neighborhoods in even greater jeopardy.

The list of concerns goes on and on but you get the idea.  We’ve just started a new group call “Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste”.  We have lots of information and want to ensure our neighborhood is informed.

I thought there would be a fight on this one.  The issue is one of risk — how risky is it to have all this toxic waste on our border?  In their presentation last November, PDC was adamant that their safety measures were impeccable, and I don’t doubt it.  But as concerned citizen John McClain said after the presentation that night, there are things out of the company’s control (natural disasters, accidents, terrorism) that could compromise the safety of the dump. In other words, there’s still a risk; the question is, how much risk are residents willing to accept? I suppose we’ll find out at the public hearing.