Resident transportation guru David Jordan has posted a new entry on his blog about the Kellar Branch situation. He writes up a good contrast between those who want a trail and those who need rail service.
Monthly Archives: July 2006
School debate contentious enough without cynicism
I finally figured out what it is that really gets my goat in the debate over where District 150 wants to put its new school. It’s cynicism.
A letter printed on the Journal Star editorial page today (under the misnomer “Another View,” since it’s the same view as the JS Editorial Board’s) is a good example. Even though I disagree with her, Dawn Gersich of Peoria makes some good arguments in favor of the Glen Oak Park site for the new school. Those are appropriate and helpful to the debate. What is not helpful is the cynical eye she casts on those who disagree:
Regarding the proposed school site in Glen Oak Park, I have yet to hear, “What’s best for the children?”
And:
The fate of our neighborhoods, indeed our nation, is dependent on the investment we place in our children. It’s a shame that some people get caught up in politics and forget that we should be focused on what is best for kids.
See? Those who oppose the Glen Oak Park site are not concerned about what’s best for the children and are “caught up in politics.” This attribution of ulterior motives is known as cynicism.
Ms. Gersich is not the only cynical one. Garrie Allen said in an interview on WCBU last week that he believed the city council and others have “an agenda” to “clean up” the East Bluff. In other words, he thinks they’re more interested in urban renewal than what’s best for the children’s education. Mr. Matheson has made similar remarks.
This kind of rhetoric is horribly misleading, and it is not healthy for the debate.
First of all, Peorians want District 150 to succeed. They want the best for their children and all children in the city. They want the schools to be second to none so people want to move into District 150 instead of out of it. The debate is not between those who care about the children and those who care about politics. We all care about the children.
Secondly, doing what’s best for the children cannot be divorced from considering what’s best for the city and what’s best for the financial health of the school district.
You can dismiss city cooperation as “politics” if you want, but the school is not an enclave, uneffected by and not affecting the city. If urban flight continues, if crime increases, if property values continue to go down, it’s not just the city that loses, it’s the school district. They lose students, performance, property tax revenue, and federal funds. Similarly, if schools are in disrepair and test scores are low, it’s not just the school district that suffers, it’s the city, because what young family wants to live in a failing school district? The city and school district must work together for their mutual success, and that directly affects the children.
Another unpleasant subject when determining “what’s best for the children” is money. You know what would be best for my children? The best private tutor(s) money can buy, then college at Harvard or Oxford. Are my kids going to get that? No. I don’t have the money to do that. When you want to do what’s best for the children, you have to what’s best for them within your means.
The school district is in bad financial shape. Contrary to popular belief, their ambitious plan to build new schools was not based purely on “what’s best for the children.” The plan came about as a way for the district to save money. The idea is to eliminate old, inefficient buildings, and consolidate into fewer, larger, but more efficient buildings. Educational experts will tell you that “what’s best for the children” are small, neighborhood schools — not large, consolidated schools. In fact, a District 150 subcommittee headed up by Bradley professor Bernard Goitein reported exactly that to the school board before the master building plan was put together.
I say all this, not to say that the school board doesn’t have the best interests of the students at heart (I believe they do), but to point out that the issue is not as black and white as some letter writers would have you believe. Both sides in this debate want what’s best for the children, but have different views on how to accomplish that within the financial means of the district and in cooperation with the city.
Zoning committee recommends supermajority to change institutional boundaries
The City Council will decide Tuesday night whether to require a supermajority — a 2/3 vote — to change the boundaries of an institutional zoning district.
Institutions such as colleges, hospitals, and universities have a special zoning designation in Peoria. It’s known as “N1,” or “institutional,” and it has advantages for the institutions and the city.
For the institution, it gives them a self-contained campus area within which they are free to do almost anything (there are some limits, of course). They can set up restaurants, libraries, book stores, parking, athletic fields, etc., without having to go to the city for permission.
The city, on the other hand, benefits from, first of all, not having to deal with every little change or request that these institutions want to do within their campus area. But more importantly, this arrangement provides stability to the neighborhoods surrounding the institutional district. People can purchase homes in abutting neighborhoods with a reasonable expectation the institution won’t be encroaching into their subdivision.
Currently, to change the boundary of an N1-zoned district requires a simple majority of the council. But the zoning commission is recommending the council change that to a supermajority for institutional boundaries that have been in effect less than 10 years.
The zoning commission’s rationale for this change is to promote even greater stability:
Requiring a super majority vote of the Council will promote stability in the Institutional District and abutting neighborhoods. An inter-reliance between the Institution and the adjacent neighborhood exists: a stable institution suggests a more predictable market place in the adjacent neighborhood, which promotes stability; a stable adjacent neighborhood likewise encourages stability for the Institution. An example of an unstable, unpredictable market place is one of speculative purchases, and deferred maintenance.
Even though this change affects several institutions (Bradley University, Illinois Central College, Methodist Medical Center of Illinois, OSF St. Francis Medical Center, Proctor Hospital, and Midstate College), I have a suspicion that the reason for this change is because of Bradley University’s not-so-subtle acquisition of houses in the Arbor District and plans to expand their campus west.
The text of the proposed ordinance states (emphasis mine):
12.3.1 An amendment which adds territory to an existing institutional district, which territory is contiguous to a boundary which previously has been changed less then ten (10) years prior to the date of the amendment, shall require the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of Council Members actually voting, but in no case shall an amendment be passed by less than the affirmative votes of six (6) Council Members.
Just two months ago, Bradley’s institutional boundary changed slightly to allow them space to put in a transformer as part of an electrical upgrade to their Global Communications building. Given the wording of this ordinance, it appears the ten-year provision will be counted from May 2006 when that last boundary change was put into effect.
In any case, when Bradley comes to the council asking for their institutional boundary to be extended to the west, it would take a 2/3 vote of the council (that’s 8 votes, assuming everyone is present) to approve it, if this ordinance passes Tuesday.
Nevertheless, neither Bradley nor the other affected institutions appear to be worried about it. They didn’t even respond to the zoning commission’s request for input.
Watch the 9:00 news July 18 on UPN 59
I’m going to be on TV!
I’ve agreed to be interviewed on “News 25 at 9 on My59” a week from Tuesday, July 18. This will be a live interview with Mike Dimmick, and I have no idea what the topic will be yet. I’m glad Bill Dennis is going to be interviewed first, so I’ll get some idea what to expect.
Be sure to watch! I think I’ll dress business-casual for the occasion… maybe put on a sport coat. I sure hope I don’t sound like a complete idiot — always my greatest fear when being interviewed….
Gone fishing
Well, I mean that metaphorically, actually. I’ve only fished once in my life, and didn’t catch anything.
I need to unplug for a little while. I’ve been getting a bit too obsessed with the blog lately, and, frankly, I’m unhappy with how my posts have been getting more and more negative. So, it’s time to get away from it for a few days, clear my head a little, and contemplate the future of the Chronicle.
In the meantime, please enjoy the other fine writers on my blogroll, and have a great weekend!
How to solve the “pushcartel” problem
Downtown restaurants are complaining that they just can’t compete against the pushcarts for lunch business. The Journal Star highlights Fahey’s, which just closed its doors for good, saying the carts pushed them out of business there.
My first thought was, they were located in the basement of the Commerce Bank building. Doesn’t that sound like a great place to go for lunch on a beautiful summer day: the basement? You think maybe location had something to do with their demise?
But then, on second thought, I can see their point. Here you have downtown businesses that have brick and mortar buildings, pay property taxes, and every day they have these pushcarts swoop in and steal the lion’s share of their business. I would be pretty ticked, too.
So what’s the answer? Outlaw pushcarts? No, here’s my suggestion: let the downtown restaurants set up their own pushcarts for free. In other words, define a perimeter and say, any restaurant within this perimeter is free to set up a pushcart on courthouse square. They have to get a permit, but there’s no charge for the permit. Wouldn’t this level the playing field?
My theory is that people like the pushcarts because (a) they like eating outside in the summer, (b) they like being able to have a wide selection of restaurant choices conveniently located near each other, (c) they enjoy the atmosphere of courthouse square where there are regularly-scheduled musical acts, and (d) the pushcarts have really tasty food.
So, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. But businesses that have invested in downtown shouldn’t have to pay an extra fee to join ’em, in my opinion.
Say goodnight, Garrie
On WCBU (89.9 FM) tonight, they aired a half-hour interview with outgoing District 150 School Board member Garrie Allen. They touched on many topics, but I was particularly interested in his remarks about the Glen Oak School controversy.
Garrie Allen believes the city should butt out of the school board’s building plans — that it’s none of their business — unless, of course, they are in favor of the school board’s plans, in which case their help is welcome. He further believes that the residents, parents, and city council have an agenda: they want the school district to “clean up” the East Bluff, which he kept calling “a blighted area.” That should be the city’s job, he contends, not the school district’s.
Allen stated he was really surprised when all the controversy erupted over the Glen Oak Park location for the school. He said he thought the school board would be praised for their progressive and innovative idea and people would be lining up to volunteer their help to make it happen. Instead, the only group that really understands what the school district is trying to do, says Garrie, is the park district, which approved an intergovernmental land-sharing agreement with the school district.
I couldn’t be more disappointed with Mr. Allen’s comments.
I don’t remember Mr. Allen asking the city to “butt out” when they offered their police force to double as truancy officers. I don’t recall the city being asked to “butt out” when Mayor Ardis challenged the community to raise money for a “Peoria Promise” program that would reward students who stayed in District 150 with a free or partially-paid college education. Apparently, Mr. Allen thinks cooperation is a one-way street, from the city to the school district.
And what kind of hyper-provincial mentality believes that cleaning up a blighted neighborhood is somehow opposed to the school board’s educational objectives? One would think the school board would welcome and assist attempts to stabilize the neighborhood, since that would improve students’ home environment — and if their home environment is safe and stable, it will be easier for students to focus on their school work. But instead, Mr. Allen paints the city’s attempts to work with the school board to stabilize neighborhoods as something that will help the city, but hurt the students. This kind of twisted logic would leave Solomon scratching his head.
I had the pleasure of voting against Mr. Allen in the last election. He lost by a considerable margin, but I savor the small part I played in his defeat.
You know what amazes me about this whole Glen Oak School thing? It’s that, despite the fact that nearly every parent, neighbor, representative, resident, professional, worker, etc., in the East Bluff and the city at large has expressed disapproval of the district’s plan, the school district still thinks that they made the right decision and are doing the right thing. They’ve had Bradley professors, city commission members, a state senator, Glen Oak students, etc., all speak out against the board’s actions. Are they deterred? Has the thought, “Hmm, maybe we were wrong,” crossed their minds, if even for a fleeting moment?
Hardly. If anything, they’re all the more steeled in their opinions. If Moses walked in the district offices on Wisconsin with two tablets that said “Don’t build on Glen Oak Park” and brought 10 plagues on the district, I’m convinced the board would ignore him, too (no doubt citing separation of church and state). This kind of overconfidence is baffling, yet endemic in this board of education. For a school district that wants to build a “community center” style school, they sure are doing their darndest to alienate the community.
I think the only thing we can do is exactly what we did to Mr. Allen. Vote them out at the next available opportunity.
ADDENDUM:Â I see on the July 11 council agenda that there’s intergovernmental cooperation between the school district and the city called the “Safer Neighborhood Schools Sidewalk Improvement Project.” I wonder if Mr. Allen signed on to that agreement, or if he felt the city should “butt out” of that, too.
Conspicuous Consumption
I’ve lived in Peoria all my life, and I’ve yet to find anyone who can answer this puzzle for me: What is so special about Beachler’s Amoco (corner of War Memorial and University) that their gas is always 10 to 15 cents per gallon higher than everyone else in town? And why in the world are there always people there filling up?
Is it a status thing — like wearing the hottest brand of clothing? Is it a full-service station, where a gaggle of grease monkeys run out, ’50’s-style, and start checking your oil, tire pressure, washer fluid, etc., in addition to filling up your tank and making friendly conversation with you? Does a genie pop out of the pump and grant you three wishes? Do they have a special blend of gasoline that smells like a fresh chocolate mocha if you accidentally spill it on you or your car?
Any of these things might make their “special” prices worth it. But, from what I can tell, it’s just like any other gas station. So why the high prices?
Add the Chronicle to your newsreader!
I was reading PeoriaIllinoisan’s post, “An Open Letter to Bloggers,” and got lambasted by this line:
Your blog doesn’t have an Atom/RSS/XML syndication feed. It was smashing stuff, truly, but I keep forgetting to check it for new posts and articles. If you had a syndication feed — it’s a built-in option with most blogging software — I could bookmark your blog in Bloglines.com or any desktop newsreader, and be alerted to every update.
Well, I’ve never used syndication feeds, so I never really thought about it before. It turns out that these feeds were built-in to the snazzy WordPress software, but I didn’t have any links to make it easy for people to subscribe.
So now, taking a cue from the Blogfather, I’ve signed up with FeedBurner to make it easy and convenient for you to add my little blog to your newsreader. I’ve added a “Subscribe” link in the menu bar at the top of the page, as well as on the side bar under the “Meta” menu. I hope you all find this to be a useful addition to the site.
If you have any other suggestions to make the site more user-friendly or interesting, leave me a comment or shoot me an e-mail. As always, thanks for reading!
District 150 Realtor: Nice work if you can get it
It’s been quite a mystery, trying to figure out how Keller Williams Premier Realty got the nod to provide all of District 150’s realty needs. You would think, with homes sure to bring in over $2,500 each in commission, the district would bid out professional services like a realtor. But not so.
If the school district wants to acquire property, they don’t go directly to a realtor — they call their attorneys: Kavanagh, Scully, Sudow, White & Frederick, P.C. Their attorneys then work with a realtor whom they have retained for approximately 18 years now: Dinah Mannlein, formerly a Re/Max realtor, now general broker for the Keller Williams franchise office in Peoria.
In a letter from District 150’s attorneys dated 19 April 2006 to Controller and Treasurer Guy Cahill (obtained via an FOIA request), attorney David J. Walvoord explains the history of this contract arrangement:
This relationship began in 1988, when I was asked by an in-coming Superintendent for a recommendation for a real estate broker to help him relocate to Peoria. Of the several names I gave him, Ms. Mannlein was chosen. Shortly after that time, the District needed the services of a real estate professional to help acquire several properties for the District and [former Superintendent] Dr. [John] Strand and I recommended Ms. Mannlein to the Board of Education. Either the Superintendent or I sent her a letter retaining her on behalf of the District, she was to be paid a commission of five (5%) percent based upon the purchase price of any properties, which were part of a project, or, if there were isolated properties put on the market by their owner for sale, she was to receive the standard buyer’s side commission of 3.5%, which is paid by the seller.
The dates are a little sketchy, but it’s clear Ms. Mannlein has been the district’s realtor for a good long time. The letter goes on to share some of the projects she’s worked on, including “the acquisition of a number of properties for the Tyng School expansion, Whittier School and Glen oak School site expansions, Lincoln School site acquisition, Columbia Terrace purchases, Central High School–North Street purchases,” and “the Lindbergh lot purchase on North Sheridan.” Nice work if you can get it.
Walvoord also explains the working arrangements between the district, attorneys, and Keller Williams Realty:
The realtor works directly with me, as attorney for the District. They take directions from me and make reports to me. In turn, I keep the administration advised as to the status of the project.
The current purchases of properties on North Prospect and East Frye Streets at Glen Oak Park are under the same agreement.
Not only do reports and directions go through the attorneys, so do commissions on the sale of property. The settlement charges (i.e., commissions) for seven of the eight acquired properties were not reported on the HUD-1 settlement statements. Instead, Keller Williams billed Kavanagh, et. al., P.C. for the commissions, which are as follows:
| Address | Sales Price | Commission |
|---|---|---|
| 2102 N. Prospect | $140,000 | Paid by seller |
| 2126 N. Prospect | $98,000 | $4,900 |
| 2138 N. Prospect | $82,000 | $4,100 |
| 2142 N. Prospect | $90,000 | $4,500 |
| 2144 N. Prospect | $89,000 | $4,450 |
| 2206 N. Prospect | $120,000 | $6,000 |
| 2208 N. Prospect | $133,500 | $6,675 |
| 2212 N. Prospect | $125,000 | $6,250 |
| TOTAL | $877,500 | $36,875 |
Except for the one property noted above, the sellers are not paying the commissions on these properties — the school district is, albeit indirectly.
Incidentally, I’ve never met Ms. Mannlein, but I’m sure she’s a very nice person. According to a press release from the Peoria Area Association of Realtors, she won the Association’s Distinguished Member for Community Service Award “for her exceptional volunteer work with Peoria Junior League, Children’s Home, Peoria Symphony, American Cancer Society, Methodist Hospice, Family House, Peoria Zoological Society, Peoria Garden Club, Crab Orchard Homeowners Association, and her church.” No one could accuse her of not giving back to the community.
That said, I’m still surprised that this contract for realty services never comes up for review or renewal. Not that I have any beef with Ms. Mannlein being the district’s realtor in perpetuity (we should all be so lucky), but doesn’t such an arrangement seem unusual for a public body? To provide all the district’s realty business (and commissions) to a single realtor for almost 20 years without any kind of review?
I’m just asking.