I know you’re all waiting with bated breath for me to comment on Bob Manning’s proposal to District 150. I’m deliberately holding off until the whole plan comes out, instead of the bits and pieces that have been reported in the paper the past couple of days. It looks interesting, doesn’t it?
Monthly Archives: July 2006
One World Café to expand with a little help from the city
One World Café, established in 1994 at the corner of Main and University, recently purchased the former Lagron-Miller building to their immediate east and is trying to secure financing to expand their restaurant:
Their expansion plans include the relocation of the kitchen and upgrade of appliances, reconfiguration of the dining room to increase customer capacity, creation of a separate smoking friendly dining room/bar, improvements to a privately owned parking lot and a modification to the building’s façade to conform to the proposed Renaissance Park design guidelines.
They also want to add more staff — 8 full-time and 6 part-time employees — to meet the demands of the increased customer capacity.
They’re on the city council’s agenda for Tuesday because they want to borrow money from the city’s Business Development Fund (BDF). According to the Request for Council Action, the BDF’s purpose is to provide “a secondary or ‘gap’ financing source for local businesses,” especially those in the city’s Enterprise Zone.
One World owners Husam and Salam Eid (brothers) are putting $47,200 of private equity toward the expansion and have secured a $372,000 loan from Princeville State Bank. But with the project cost estimated to be $519,200, they’re $100,000 short. That’s where the city’s BDF loan comes in.
“The BDF is a separate and dedicated account, whose sole purpose is to provide secondary financing to local companies.” In this case, the city would loan One World $100,000 at 4.25% interest for 5 years. It’s a good deal for One World and a good deal for the city — more private investment in Renaissance Park and increased employment.
As a side note, did you catch the “smoking friendly dining room/bar” in their plans? Some people think business owners shouldn’t be allowed to permit smoking on their own property.
Hey Bloomington, hurry to Peoria! Gas is only $2.96/gal. here!
This is a pretty funny story from today’s Pantagraph — especially the comments section. Apparently, a rumor got started in Bloomington-Normal yesterday that gas prices outside of the twin cities, from Champaign to Peoria, were up to $4 per gallon! So, everyone was rushing to the gas stations to fill up at $2.96 per gallon before their gas prices rose as well.
What do you want to bet some enterprising gas station owner started the rumor? Don’t these people have any friends in Peoria that they could call and check?
My favorite comment, no doubt referring to Bloomington-Normal’s recent ban on smoking at restaurants: “B/N is so big on banning things these days, how about a ban on raising gas prices? Now THERE’S a ban I’d support!”
Bradley’s 1991 Plan an interesting read
Bradley University first filed an Official Development Plan (ODP) in 1991 when the city created the N1 (Institutional) zoning designation. Since then, it has been amended four times, expanding their institutional boundaries each time, but the balance of the plan is still in effect. The largest addition was the St. James apartments east of campus.
There are several things that are notable about the university’s ODP, which you can read in its entirety by clicking here (1.71M PDF).
NEIGHBORHOOD COLLABORATION
First, there was considerable collaboration between Bradley and the surrounding neighborhoods. An institutional planning committee was established through the West Bluff Council, which included representatives from Bradley-West (Arbor District), Moss-Bradley, and the Uplands neighborhoods, as well as representatives from Bradley University.
This process of collaboration was praised throughout the document, such as these statements:
The Committee frequently acknowledged that the University will not be as prominent an institution, nor will the Neighborhood maintain or improve its character, without cooperation and consideration of the needs of each other.
The University is furthermore committed to continue to exchange information and have open dialogue with Neighborhood representatives which will hopefully lead to further improvements toward resolving quality of life issues.
The document concluded by saying the process “reaffirmed the need for ongoing dialogue between the Neighborhoods and the University.” I wonder at what point the university decided to start stonewalling the neighbors until they’d acquired a critical mass of properties in the area where they wanted to expand?
PARKING UNDER ELMWOOD?
Another fascinating part of the document is their plan to solve Bradley’s long-term parking needs. They hired a consultant to assess the immediate and long-term needs and come up with solutions. The short term solution was to reconfigure existing lots (including widening Elmwood Ave.), lease space from owners of nearby lots, and better utilize on-street spaces within the institutional district. That added 305 spaces by the Fall of 1992. But the long-term solution was really interesting (emphasis mine):
Subject to further specific study and of course financing, the ultimate solution for additional parking supply appears to rest with construction of a parking structure. The proposed structure concept would lie underground from Main Street to Bradley Avenue under what is now Elmwood Avenue. The facility, which would be at least one level underground, would be accessible only from St. James (the campus entranceway). Surface parking would be retained.
In providing this solution, there is the related effect of improving parking to the central campus without encouraging additional neighborhood traffic. The plan would also allow the University to remove campus internal parking on the ODK circle (in front of Bradley Hall). Furthermore, the additional capacity of approximately 600 spaces could allow the University to vacate Fredonia Avenue for use as a pedestrian mall and also alleviate (or eliminate) the need for ancillary lot usage of the St . Mark and Newman Center lots.
Now that’s an ambitious plan, isn’t it? I wonder whatever became of it? I’m going to guess that cost was a major factor. In 1997, Bradley built an above-ground parking deck near the Global Communications Center instead. This provided an additional 690 parking spaces — almost a hundred more than the underground deck plan — and cost $4.5 million to construct.
LONG-TERM BOUNDARIES
The plan, and specifically the boundary of the N1 district, was designed to be “useful” for “at least 20-25 years.” That would be at least until 2011-2016. Now, I realize that no one in 1991 had a crystal ball, and that significant changes could have occurred between 1991 and 2006 that require the plan to be modified. But that begs the question: What has changed? Enrollment hasn’t dramatically increased.
The only thing that’s really changed is that the men’s basketball team gained nationwide recognition this year when they made it to the Sweet Sixteen. The university wants to take this opportunity to attract top-caliber athletes, and the way to do that is to have top-caliber training facilities. That means (to the university) replacing the aging Robertson Memorial Fieldhouse, which began life as a WWII airplane hangar.
But the replacement building will be larger and wipe out what little parking exists, thus the need for a new parking deck. The university wants to put that on the west side of Maplewood, where those big, historic homes stand now.
THE BOTTOM LINE
In the end, I think a lot of controversy and hard feelings could have been averted if the university would have continued their dialog with the neighborhoods instead of quietly buying up homes along Maplewood and keeping their plans a secret. They may have had to compromise — only use half of the frontage along Maplewood, for instance — but would have formed a stronger bond of trust with the surrounding neighbors.
The university’s plans, as far as I can discern them, are pretty modest as far as expansion goes. But they’ve created a climate of suspicion now that won’t be easily overcome. That’s unfortunate.
District 150: Funding plan depends on circumventing voters
Guy Cahill, District 150 treasurer, is quoted in today’s Journal Star saying this: “Until we can demonstrate having our fiscal house in order, I think people would legitimately have a healthy skepticism of putting more money into our coffers.”
Bingo. That’s exactly how Peorians feel. If the district were to come up with a reasonable plan to put their fiscal house in order, I think they could get public buy-in and pass a referendum. But their current plan is pie-in-the-sky, and they know voters wouldn’t pass a tax increase to pay for it.
So, what to do? Why, go around the voters, of course! That’s why they wanted the state to pass a bill that would allow the school to get funding through the Public Building Commission (PBC) instead of having to ask voters. The only trouble is, the governor saw through their little ploy and put an amendatory veto on the bill. If his veto stands, the district would have to get voter approval to use PBC funds.
The governor has said that he doesn’t want the district to raise taxes without voter approval. The district doesn’t consider its proposal as a tax increase. The governor does, spokeswoman Becky Carroll said Thursday.
See, the school district is close to paying off some old bonds. Once they’re paid off, the tax levy that was financing them would expire. The district wants to keep that tax levy in place to pay for the new bonds. Thus, the district doesn’t consider its proposal a tax increase because, under their plan, the tax levy on the new bonds wouldn’t be any higher than the tax levy on the old bonds.
But do they really expect us to buy that logic? That’s like if I gave the district a credit card and said, “okay guys, I authorize you to spend $1,000. The bill will come to me, and I’ll pay $50 per month until it’s paid off.” Then, just about the time the debt is paid off, the district decides to charge another $1,000 — without my approval — and tell me it’s not costing me any more because I’ll still only be paying $50 per month.
Cahill thinks the district should be allowed to do just that, and if they can’t, then their whole funding plan falls apart. So, in essence, District 150’s building plan is dependent on the district’s ability to avoid a public referendum to extend the tax levy (which is plainly a tax increase). That means, their plan only works if they avoid accountability to the voters.
That’s a bad plan.
Showcase of Homes this Sunday
PRESS RELEASE
Peoria, IL – The City of Peoria and the Renaissance Park Commission are coordinating a showcase of homes for sale in Renaissance Park. On Sunday, July 16th, real estate agents with listings in the area have been invited to host an open house between 2 and 4 in the afternoon. Property owners who are selling their homes without a real estate agent have also been invited to participate.
The only “free parking” is in Monopoly
When we used to play Monopoly at my house growing up, not only did landing on Free Parking mean you didn’t land on someone’s hotel on St. James Place, it also meant a windfall of cash, since any Chance or Community Chest fees went into the “kitty” and were awarded to the next person to land on “Free Parking.”
But in the real world, there’s no such thing as free parking, and there is no windfall of cash, either. Gary Sandberg explained it best on Tuesday’s Outside the Horseshoe program on WCBU. Someone is always paying for parking, even in the suburbs. The only difference between downtown parking and suburban parking is who’s paying.
Those huge surface lots out by, say, the Shoppes at Grand Prairie, didn’t just descend from the sky. Somebody bought the land, somebody built the lot, somebody maintains the lot — and that all costs money. At the Shoppes, or Metro Centre, or Northwoods, or Sheridan Village, the business owners pay for it. It’s part of their rent structure. The patrons don’t have to pay (directly) for parking because the business owners have decided to provide “free” parking for their customers.
Now let’s go downtown. Who owns the land, builds the decks/lots, and maintains them? For much of downtown, it’s the city. Can businesses downtown provide free parking for their patrons? Sure! All they need to do is work out an arrangement where they validate parking tickets from a nearby city-owned deck or lot. Then the business pays the city instead of the customer.
But why is the city providing parking (other than street parking) at all? The city doesn’t build lots or decks in the suburbs for any of the businesses out there. They didn’t build decks or lots downtown until about thirty years ago. Before then, downtown developers had to build and maintain their own parking structures. Remember Sears? They had their own on-site parking. Bergners? Carsons? The city didn’t provide parking for these businesses.
So, it will be nice having free two-hour parking on the riverfront now, but one has to wonder why the city is providing “free” parking to some businesses and not others. When Gary Sandberg says the city should get out of the parking business, I think he may be on to something. If the city sold all their decks and lots (which are not making the city any money), they could get a tidy influx of cash and no longer have the maintenance headaches.
Then businesses downtown would be on an even playing field with the suburbs as far as parking goes, and the city could focus on providing other, more essential services.
Bloomington to give form-based codes a whirl
Some of Bloomington’s older neighborhoods are concerned about what kind of houses might fill-in vacant lots between their pre-World-War-II homes. Traditional zoning only regulates the use, but not the form of the structures. So you could have a beautiful, Italianate-style home next door to a McMansion, or a split-level, or a ranch, or something else that’s single-family but completely incongruous with the neighborhood.
To help these neighborhoods, Bloomington is going to try form-based zoning, just like Peoria is in the middle of doing. Peoria recently had charrettes to get the public’s idea of what they want the built environment of their neighborhoods to look like. Bloomington isn’t calling it a charrette, but they are having an open meeting this Wednesday to get public input.
If you want to keep up-to-date on the progress of Peoria’s form-based code, check out the Heart of Peoria website (a link also appears on the sidebar). You can also see the results of the recent charrettes, including artists’ renderings of how the Prospect Road and Sheridan Road corridors could look.
Supermajority restriction fails
Only three council members voted in favor of the zoning commission’s recommendation to require a supermajority of the council to expand the boundaries of an institutional district. The general consensus was that the system isn’t broken, so they didn’t want to “fix” it.
One of the council members trotted out the popular notion that there’s no harm being done by Bradley because they’re buying out their neighbors at above-market prices — in some cases, five times the property value. It sounds like they’re a really good neighbor, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t you just love to get a cool half-million for your $100,000 house?
The problem with this reasoning is that it doesn’t take into account the whole neighborhood. Take the example of Bradley University buying the houses along Maplewood across from the Fieldhouse. Yes, the people on Maplewood are getting a great deal, but what about the rest of the Arbor District? What about the properties on Cooper or Rebecca?
The answer is that the neighborhood as a whole is destabilized.
Why? Because who wants to buy in a neighborhood when the university is expanding west and that beautiful historical house on Cooper may be the next to be acquired within a few years? It’s not the family who wants to put down roots in the neighborhood and raise their kids there. It’s someone looking to buy a property for $100,000 and hopefully get $500,000 for it when the university decides it wants it.
And for those neighbors who are already there, how many of them want to put new landscaping around their house? Or put in new windows? Or new siding? Or even a new paint job? If the residents reasonably expect the university to keep moving west, it would be silly to put a lot of capital improvements into their houses.
Speculative purchases. Deferred maintenance. This is what happens when institutions disregard the boundaries of their institutional district.
But the council, judging by the rhetoric of the “nay” voters, thinks everything is hunky-dory with Bradley’s property acquisitions. They’re not interested in taking any action against Bradley’s encroachment into the Arbor District, let alone enacting the modest proposal that came before the council tonight. As far as they’re concerned, Bradley’s doing the neighborhood a favor by disobeying the city’s own ordinance.
Dear Alexis, xxoo, Love, Phil
If I were Elizabeth Khazzam, I’d keep an eye on Phil Luciano. He wrote another love note to her husband Alexis in today’s paper.
Forgive me for not crying big crocodile tears over Khazzam’s ill-fated basketball court on Grandview Drive. If a schmo like me built a basketball court on an easement, I’d buy the contention that it was just an innocent mistake. But this guy is a developer. He knows about easements. He knows about permits. He should have known better.
His offer to tear out the basketball court at his own expense if the village ever needed to use the easement is silly. First of all, there’s no guarantee he’s going to live there forever. Would this agreement be transferrable to the new owner?
Secondly, the crux of the argument that he deserves our sympathy is that he was making this for the public good — it was going to be a little public park he’s creating out of the goodness of his heart for the poor little children of the neighborhood. Yet when the villiage asked him if he’d deed the property to the villiage to officially make it a public park, he blinked.
He can’t have it both ways. If he wants it to be private property and control the use of the land, then he has to abide by the villiage’s laws. As a developer, he should certainly have known that. When it comes to municipalities, the old axiom that it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission never works.
Kudos to the village board for treating Alexis just like any other citizen. Hopefully he won’t take his ball and go home, as Phil suggests. Hey Phil, even nice guys have to fix their mistakes.