Monthly Archives: May 2006

Uncategorized

Slow news day

Sorry for the paucity of posts, but there’s really nothing to blog about today.

The big meeting with Ray LaHood, the school board, the park board, and the city was a big bunch of nothing, according to news accounts.  The city council was off this week, so there’s no council meeting to cover.  I asked Randy Ray if there was anything new on the cable franchise renewal front — nope.

*sigh*

I guess it’s kind of nice to have a break, now that I think about it.  I’m sure there will be something blogworthy again soon enough….

Nation/World, State of Illinois

Pantagraph can’t decide if it’s for or against earmarks

1 Comment

I was looking up some information on Ray LaHood and the money he brings to our community through the earmark system, and I ran across this editorial from Sunday’s Bloomington Pantagraph. (I recommend you read it, as it will make it easier to understand this post.)

It’s titled, “Illinois missing out on federal ‘pork’ feeding,” and the basic thesis is that Illinois pays more in taxes than it gets in federal spending on state projects. In fact, they claim we’re 46th out of the 50 states, receiving “only 73 cents for every $1 its taxpayers sent to the nation’s capital in fiscal 2004.”

What I’m trying to figure out is if they’re for or against earmarks. They say, “Illinois is subsidizing the ‘earmarks’ and ‘pork’ that are helping drive up our national debt.” So, they’re against it, right? But then they conclude by saying:

We’re not holding our collective breaths for any earth-shaking tightening of the reins from lawmakers who like to remind us that these pork projects date back to the days of George Washington.

If the rules don’t change, then Illinois’ representatives should do a better job of feeding with the others at the trough.

This strikes me as highly hypocritical, and puts lawmakers in a “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” situation. If they “bring home the pork,” they’re criticized for driving up the national debt. Yet, if they show restraint and don’t use the earmark system to its maximum, then they’re criticized for subsidizing other states’ pork and not bringing enough to Illinois!

If I were a lawmaker and read that editorial, it would persuade me to just keep on doing what I’ve been doing.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Ray LaHood

LaHood mediation meeting not inspiring confidence

2 Comments

Nothing cures distrust like more secrecy.

Today’s Word on the Street column reports that the public won’t be allowed to witness Ray LaHood’s mediation skills when he tries to broker a compromise on the location of a new school in the city’s East Bluff. LaHood will be meeting behind closed doors at 9:30 a.m. this Wednesday, May 31, with officials from the city, school board and park board. They’ll have a press conference after the meeting.

It appears I’m not the only one who wonders why LaHood is getting involved in this issue. In a letter to the editor that was also published in today’s Journal Star, Donald R. Jackson says:

It is too bad LaHood didn’t make himself available to mediate the conflict between the School Board, Dr. Kay Royster and members of the community who supported her then and still do. LaHood was asked to intervene, but he declined stating that he had no control or influence over the board.

In one sense, these two situations are different: the Royster issue involved one public body that was internally divided — the school board; the school siting issue involves three public bodies — the school board, park board, and city — who are at odds with each other, but are not internally divided.

But in another sense, the situations aren’t different at all. In both cases, it’s a local government issue that doesn’t warrant the time of a U.S. Congressman to mediate. What’s next? Will he be mediating a compromise between the city council and the county board regarding jail fees and election commissions?

And if that weren’t enough, he’s also related to the park board director. Doesn’t that bother anyone? I’m not trying to impugn his integrity, but LaHood seems to have a real blind spot when it comes to the appearance of his actions. He should have enough judgement to see that his in-law relationship to Bonnie Noble gives at least the appearance of impropriety and bias when he’s trying to mediate a dispute that involves the park district.

Then to have the meeting behind closed doors is just the icing on the cake. As the WOTS column points out, decisions made in closed-door meetings are one of the biggest points of contention! And I loved this line:

Tim Butler, LaHood’s spokesman, defended the decision to have the meeting closed, saying there would not be any decisions or determinations and therefore still plenty of time for public input.

There won’t be any decisions? What exactly is the point of this meeting? How do you resolve a dispute without making any decisions? Is Ray just going to do one of those little team-building exercises — like having Councilman Manning fall backwards while Ken Hinton and Tim Cassidy catch him so they can all build up trust for each other?

Despite all my reservations, I nevertheless hope that something good comes out of this meeting. I hope LaHood proves wrong all my fears. But most of all, I hope Glen Oak School remains in the heart of the East Bluff, and that the school board will learn to be more transparent in the future so we don’t have to go through all this rigmarole.

Illinois American Water

Tribune looks at water buyout efforts

1 Comment

The Chicago Tribune has a good article on the fight many communities are waging to buy back their water works from American Water Company. You’ve probably heard most of the stories, but I did find a couple of quotes particularly interesting:

In most instances, American Water–RWE’s U.S. arm and the largest private water company in the country–has won. In the last 15 years, it has sold only three operations because of hostile challenges.

I didn’t know they had sold any, did you? Although the Tribune sets this in a negative tone (“it has only sold three…”), I imagine most cities would see this as an encouragement. If hostile challenges have worked three times, they can work again, right? On the other hand, RWE has a strong incentive to keep fighting:

The Illinois challenges come at an especially delicate juncture for the company. Although American Water officials say none of the firm’s individual units is for sale, RWE is pursuing a public stock offering for the whole of American Water. If communities succeed in taking over even a few of its subsidiaries, the value of the public offering could be seriously eroded, company officials say.

I suppose their reasoning should have been obvious, but this is the first time I’ve seen the company say something other than simply “it’s not for sale.”

Even though I’m not a proponent of Peoria buying back its water works, I think it’s good to keep abreast of this issue because it’s only a couple of years before Peoria tries the buyout route again.

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, Peoria Streets

The Cold War is over; no need for sprawl anymore

7 Comments

At Thursday’s form-based code “Work-In-Progress” presentation, I learned something new. Do you know what one of the big contributing factors to suburban sprawl was? Civil defense. Really!

In 1951, as a way of protecting us from nuclear attack, President Truman announced his National Industrial Dispersion Policy. The idea was to provide incentives for cities to get their industrial plants away from densely populated areas so that, if the bomb drops, it would minimize the damage. This assumes the old-school mentality that our enemies would only go after military targets and want to minimize civilian casualties.

Well, city planners started planning with this “dispersion” principle in mind, and, lo and behold, our cities are now dispersed! Everything is separate and safe from those Soviet nukes. Except the Soviets are gone and our new enemies are just as happy taking out civilians, so our sprawling cities offer us no protection now. Truman couldn’t have seen that coming.

Other than that, Thursday’s meeting was nothing new for a regular HOP presentation attender. That’s not to say it wasn’t good, because it was. But it’s lost the “wow” factor for me because I’ve seen so many of these artists’ renderings and Photoshopped pictures of what Peoria could look like in the future: tree-lined streets with landscaped boulevards, historic streetlamps, angled parking, wider sidewalks, and bustling pedestrian traffic. It’s time to take the next step of turning those pictures into reality for Peoria.

It all starts in the black and white minutiae of zoning rules and regulations. Nothing is as powerful as zoning at shaping a city.

For example, take a drive down Knoxville and check out the new doctor’s office on the northwest corner of Knoxville and Corrington. All the other professional offices along that stretch of Knoxville are set close to the sidewalk with parking in the rear. But the new office has to conform to one-size-fits-all suburban zoning laws which require it to be set back from the street and provide parking in front. As buildings are replaced, you can see how, over time, that kind of zoning could change the whole character of that stretch.

Because the stakes are so high in tinkering with the zoning ordinances, getting citizen input is essential. But at the same time, it’s the fun part of the job. The real work begins when you try to codify the citizens’ desires into regulatory language, working with public works staff, planning engineers, and other government officials. That’s why Ferrell & Madden get the big bucks.

Perhaps the hardest sell and the most controversial part of their presentation is their recommendation to create another dreaded TIF (tax-increment financing) district for the Warehouse District. Their reasoning is that it’s the only financially feasible way to turn that area around. There are myriad infrastructure needs (from environmental cleanup of hydrolic fluid to upgrading power lines), and no reasonable way to finance them other than through a TIF.

However, they reason, what people are really upset about is the abuse of TIFs in Peoria, not the proper use of them. They stressed that this is an example of the type of project for which TIFs were created. This TIF would benefit a whole area, not just one business or developer like we’ve seen at MidTown Plaza, for instance.

When Ferrell Madden Associates are done, here’s what we’ll have: (1) very specific form-based codes for the Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, Prospect Corridor, and Warehouse District, and (2) zoning changes for the rest of the Heart of Peoria from euclidian zoning rules (dispersion) to traditional city planning principles (mixed-use).

Things won’t change overnight, and we certainly need to work on other problems in tandem (crime, schools), but this is one piece of the puzzle that will help transform the Heart of Peoria into a more desirable place to live and work.

Illinois American Water

At least the trip to Germany wasn’t for naught

Urbana Mayor Laurel Prussing flew to Germany earlier this spring to see if she could talk RWE AG into selling the city its part of Illinois American Water Company.  Of course, they said “nein,” but the News-Gazette reports that Illinois American did announce yesterday (coincidentally, they claim) they plan to “build a new water treatment plant in west Champaign, part of $40 million in capital improvements planned over the next five years.”

So, I guess the trip wasn’t all for naught.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools, State Legislation, State of Illinois

Legal loopholes make a mockery of the Open Meetings Act

6 Comments

I have had further correspondance with an attorney who spoke to me on condition of anonymity. Here’s a transcript of what we talked about regarding the school district’s actions and whether or not it violates the Open Meetings Act (OMA).

Real Lawyer:

C.J., I regret that there has been some misinterpretation by others about the OMA as it applies to the actions of Dist. 150. Just to clarify, the OMA and caselaw interpreting it do not (unfortunately in my view) prohibit ratification by the board after an action has been taken. What the OMA prohibits is the board taking official action on anything in closed session. Whether the board decides to approve something in advance or ratify it afterwards, it must take that action in open session.

Me:

Thanks for the follow-up. I am confused, however. If they can take final action in closed session, then approve it post facto in open session, doesn’t that make the prohibition against closed-session final action in the OMA meaningless?

Lawyer:

The board cannot take final action for the property purchases in closed session. I think Matheson may have made a remark at their last meeting stating they could do so; if he did say that, he was wrong. And “final action” doesn’t necessarily mean a formal vote; anything constituting approval can be a final action.

I don’t know what if any action the board took prior to the Prospect property purchases. But the fact that they ratified the purchases at their last meeting, in the open, was likely sufficient under current case law. This is what I think is unfortunate, but until the case law is overturned that’s what we have.

This is all sort of splitting hairs, but I wanted to try to clarify it.

Me:

Sorry I’m not grasping this. It sounds like you’re saying this (not you personally, but case law): If the school board approves in closed session the acquisition of property, it constitutes “final action” per the OMA, and is therefore illegal. But, that illegality is nullified if the board subsequently approves the purchase in open session. Am I understanding that right? They can perform an illegal act and then magically turn it into a legal act by approving it publically after the fact?

Lawyer:

In essence you are right; that’s the clear implication. And the way you phrased it helps, I think, to demonstrate why post-action ratification should not be permitted, at least in situations like the one we have with the property purchases. By allowing a board to “cure” a mistake via ratification afterwards, the courts have made it too easy to evade the intent of the OMA’s requirement for openness.

Is that the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard? What we have here is a legal loophole for the school board or any other public body to skirt around the Open Meetings Act and take secret action, away from public scrutiny, even though it involves spending (in this case) $877,500 of taxpayers’ money! All they have to do to make it “legal” is approve it after the fact in open session. Big deal. The money’s already gone! How could they not approve it? The contracts are already signed. Talk about violating the spirit of the law….

If the case law does indeed allow for this loophole, it should not be allowed to stand. Senator Shadid, who has expressed concern about the secrecy under which this action was taken, should work with his colleagues in Springfield to immediately propose an amendment to the Open Meetings Act that specifically prohibits such “post-action ratification” by a public body.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council roundup 5/23

2 Comments

Jennifer Davis did such a good job summing up the council meeting last night, I’m going to cheat and say just read her article in the Journal Star.  But I would like to make just a couple of comments about last night’s meeting.

First, it was loooong — over four hours, which is unusual these days.  When they finally got to Mayor Ardis’s plans to make the city more business-friendly, they had already been at it almost three hours, leading local businessman Lee Graves to thank the “new council,” tongue-in-cheek, for holding shorter meetings than earlier councils.  That got a laugh from everyone.

Second, I found the rhetoric during the parking discussion fascinating.  The council decided on a 9-2 vote to offer free parking for two hours at a time during the day (see my previous post for more details), but only after a lot of discussion.  During that discussion, some council members talked about how people would rather walk a couple blocks for free parking than pay for the parking that is closest to the business they’re patronizing.

That’s funny.  Just a few weeks ago, the council voted to put an unnecessary parking deck under museum square based on their belief that people would never even walk across the street from one of the surrounding lots or decks.  We were told then that we live in a northern climate here in Peoria and no one is going to walk a block or two in the rain or cold.  Now we’re told that they will walk a couple blocks — if the parking is free.  Huh.

Well, based on this new information, I think the council should reconsider their plans to build that underground parking deck.  Let’s just provide free parking at any of the surrounding lots or decks by having the museum validate visitors’ parking tickets.  Compared to parking validation, I wonder how many years it would take for the city to get a return on its investment for the parking deck.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Ray LaHood

Property acquisition not illegal; just stupid

4 Comments
UPDATE 5/24/06: A real lawyer has contacted me (no, it wasn’t Chase) and said that, since 1972, the Open Meetings Act has been amended several times. Apparently the prohibition against taking final action — 5 ILCS 120/2(e) — was added after the Collinsville v. Witte case. Thus, the school district’s action may have been illegal after all. The attorney added, “There is more recent Ill. case law holding that a board of education violated the OMA when it held an executive (closed) session to determine that the planned public sale date of school property should be rescheduled.”

At first blush, it certainly looks like a violation of the Open Meetings Act. School District 150 signs purchase agreements with property owners on Prospect Road based on a closed-session decision, then rubber stamps those purchases in open session and get help form a trustworthy firm. The Open Meetings Act says no final action can be taken in closed session, and what could be more final than purchasing property for over three-quarters of a million dollars? if legal help is needed we advise to read more

As I’ve said before, I’m no lawyer, so feel free to prove me wrong on this. But from what I can determine, the school board did not act illegally. In fact, their action has already been tested in court as far back as 1972 when the Illinois appellate court decided the case of Collinsville Community Unit School District No. 10 v. Benjamin and Lillian Witte. I found this information in an online version of Illinois Issues that was originally published in 1977. It says:

. . . the high court ruled that a “school board was not limited to considering only acquisition of property in executive session with formal action required to be taken at public meeting. Legal action concerning acquisition or sale of real property, including passage of motion to acquire property could be taken in closed session . . . .”

It goes on to say the ruling was never appealed and is now part of Illinois law. But just because it’s legal doesn’t make it wise. The idea behind allowing property negotiation in closed session is that it allows the public body to get a fair price on the property — if it were made public before purchase agreements were signed, the property values could be artificially inflated, making it needlessly more expensive to acquire. That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t look like the district got any great deals by working in secret. They spent, on average, about one and a half times the value of each property.

While it may not have been wise, it is strategic. There are many who believe like PeoriaIllinoisan that all these public meetings are a ruse, and that the school district plans to build on the park site regardless. Considering the park district is in favor of it, and Ray LaHood is brokering a “compromise,” I fear the cynics may be right. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Ray’s son Darin married to park district director Bonnie Noble’s daughter Kristen? And, if so, wouldn’t it be a bit of a conflict of interest for Ray to be brokering a “compromise” when he’s related to an interested party? Even if it’s all innocent, it has the look of impropriety.

On the other hand, the public is pretty united on this — everyone from residents to parents to state representatives to city councilmen to neighborhood activists are all against using parkland for the school. Even for political insiders, that kind of pressure is hard to push back against. I’m still going to hold out hope for now that the school board will see the error of its ways and rebuild Glen Oak School at its current site.