Monthly Archives: October 2006

St. Louis Cardinals

Go Cardinals!

10 Comments

Cardinals LogoIn a couple of hours, the Cardinals will be playing Game 3 of the NLDS against the San Diego Padres at home in St. Louis. Of course, I’m hoping for another sweep, just like the Cardinals have done the last couple of post-season series against the Padres.

I have one beef with the game today — it’s on ESPN2. There are three baseball games being played today, and two of them are on FOX (that station I get). The one I really want to watch is on ESPN2 (not even ESPN — it’s on ESPN2! ESPN has college football). Just another reason to hate the wild-card system that forces this extra round of playoffs that doesn’t bring in enough advertising dollars to put all the games on broadcast television — all so a second-place team can get a second-chance at the post-season.

Ray LaHood, State Legislation, State of Illinois

LaHood remark ignores gerrymandering

6 Comments

Rep. Ray LaHood was on 1470 WMBD-AM this morning explaining and defending his position in support of House Speaker Dennis Hastert and in favor of reforming the page system. Most of that conversation was nothing new, but one passing remark LaHood made really irritated me. I don’t have an exact quote, but it was pretty close to this: “If my constituents feel I’m doing a bad job, there’s a referendum coming up in 32 days [Nov. 7] and they can vote me out of office.”

To a certain extent, that’s true. If he really ticked off enough people, they probably would kick him out of office. But the problem is that our congressional districts are drawn in such a way that instead of the voters choosing the representatives, the representatives choose their voters. It’s called gerrymandering, and it looks like this:

IL Congressional Districts

Notice especially the 17th district (in purple) along the western border of the state. Have you ever seen anything so ridiculous? It’s so egregious, The Economist recognized it as “the champion gerrymandering” of the whole country. It essentially takes Democratic voters out of the 18th district and puts them in the 17th district, helping the 17th district stay Democratic and the 18th district stay Republican. Lane Evans represents the 17th district; LaHood represents the 18th district.

In fairness, Evans and LaHood aren’t personally responsible for this inequity; they’re only the beneficiaries. The congressional districts are drawn (or, more accurately, manipulated) at the state level. But there is state legislation proposed that would change the way districts are drawn.

House Bill 3699, “The Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Act,” was proposed on March 10, 2005, by Republican Lee Daniels and would set up a redistricting plan similar to Iowa’s redistricting process, “where the non-partisan Legislative Research Unit draws the maps and writes the legislation with the advice of a 5-member appointed commission” (FairVote.org, the source of this explanation of the bill, has a wealth of information on gerrymandering in general, and Illinois’ pending legislation in particular).

I called Schock’s office to find out his views on this legislation, but was unable to get an immediate answer. Since the legislation was referred to the Rules Committee immediately after it was introduced, there hasn’t been any floor debate on it yet. It’s likely that he’s in favor of a fairer redistricting process, although he probably won’t be able to comment on HB3699 specifically.

If we want to see real accountability to the voters in this state, the gerrymandering has to stop. We should be writing to our representatives and demanding redistricting reform.

UPDATE: I received a call back from Rep. Schock’s office and he has expressed support for HB3699 or a similar bill that would reform the state’s redistricting process. HB3699 was referred to the Rules Committee by Speaker of the House Mike Madigan, and according to Schock’s office, Madigan is the one who has the power to bring it out of committee. It’s been in the Rules Committee since March 2005.

Well, then I called Rep. Daniels’ office (Elmhurst, IL) to find out some more information about the status of the bill. His office confirmed that Speaker Madigan had referred it to the Rules Committee and that the bill is dead. Since Daniels is retiring this year, he won’t be back next legislative session to reintroduce the bill. So, it needs a new sponsor.

I called Rep. Schock’s office to request that he (should he be reelected) sponsor this or similar legislation. (I say “similar legislation” because I’m not tied to Daniels’ particular plan; there’s more than one way to reform the process. The important thing is to ensure the redistricting process is indeed reformed so that regions, not political loyalties, are represented.) His staff will confer with him on it and let me know. I’ll let you know what I find out.

Ray LaHood

LaHood loses marbles

17 Comments

Ray LaHoodFrom the Associated Press via ABC News:

LaHood said Wednesday he was standing by Hastert and predicted his fellow House Republicans would, too. It’s not the speaker who should go, LaHood said, but the “antiquated” page system that brings 15- and 16-year-olds to the Capitol and has resulted in scandals in the past.

“Some members betray their trust by taking advantage of them. We should not subject young men and women to this kind of activity, this kind of vulnerability,” LaHood said in a CNN interview. He said the program should be suspended, at least until its flaws can be corrected.

Isn’t that like saying, “Johnson up on the fourth floor is a sexual pervert; he does nothing but sexually harrass the young women who work here. Obviously the only course of action is to fire the young women he’s been harrassing — for their protection”?

As far as I’m concerned, LaHood has completely lost his marbles. There’s nothing antiquated about the page system. It’s a simple co-op program similar to the kind a lot of businesses provide to give high school and college students some job experience.

The problem is with the perverts in Congress, and the leaders who cover for them. If LaHood really wants to be visionary in solving the problem, he should advocate suspending Congress “until its flaws can be corrected.”

This is a no-brainer, folks. Condemn Foley, work on passing real ethics reform, and shut up. Instead, LaHood has chosen to defend Hastert, work on abolishing the victims, and talk about it on national TV. What a disgrace and an embarrassment to his congressional district.

Aaron Schock, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission, State Legislation

District 150 & the Public Building Commission, Part 2

5 Comments

In my last post, I looked at quotes by Senator George Shadid and District 150 Treasurer Guy Cahill regarding Senate Bill 2477, a bill that would allow the school district to borrow money to build new schools through the Public Building Commission (PBC) without having to get approval from voters through a referendum. In other words, a bill that will allow the school district to pick your pocket for their building program, a program that is questionable at best.

The Governor vetoed the bill, but Shadid has announced his intention to try to override it. Does he have enough votes? It looks very possible: A three-fifths vote is needed to override a veto; that means 36 senators and 71 representatives. Senate Bill 2477 passed overwhelmingly with 43 ayes (9 nays) in the Senate and 89 ayes (25 nays) in the House. So, if all those people felt strongly enough about the original form of this bill, they could easily override the Governor’s veto.

But why are so many senators and representatives in favor of this bill? Maybe it has something to do with the way it was presented. I’ve been reading transcripts of the floor debate in the Senate and House (did you know these are available on-line?), and it’s been a real eye-opener.

Let’s start with Senator Shadid in the Senate. He had this to say:

[T]hey [the school board] are really in dire — dire straits because they can’t get a referendum passed. They have a sixty-percent minority student population and this would be very, very beneficial and really well — well needed. I mean, we need this in our city.

They’re in dire straits? We need this in Peoria? They can’t get a referendum passed?

He was challenged on that last statement by Senator Burzynski (R-35th Dist.) who asked, “when was the last time they offered a referendum to the people?” Senator Shadid:

I have to tell you, they — they’ve not had a referendum on the — for the last ten years that I’m aware of. I can only tell you that when I tried to build a county jail, we had three referendums that failed and we finally had to go to the public building commission in 1985 to get a jail built that was to replace the jail that was a hundred and twenty-five years old.

Burzynski rejoined, “what I recall in the discussion in committee is the fact that it’s been close to thirty years since they tried to pass a referendum.”

So, Shadid’s argument is, as I understand it, thus: Since it was so difficult twenty-one years ago to pass a referendum to build a jail, obviously it will be impossible now to get a referendum passed to build new schools. It’s not even worth trying to get the money that way — we need to circumvent the voters just like we did to get the jail built.

Yet, only six years ago, the Journal Star reported that “Illinois voters approve[d] most school bond issues” (3/23/2000): “Seven of the 10 area schools that asked for more money, got it. Now they’ll be able to construct new buildings, renovate old ones or just pay bills.” None of these bond issues were in the City of Peoria, but they were close — as close as Dunlap, to give just one example. It just goes to show that when a school board makes a good case for increased funding, it is possible to get a referendum passed, without picking voters’ pockets.

Okay, onto our newest representative in Springfield, Mr. Aaron Schock, who took to the floor of the House to speak in favor of this bill:

I rise in support of Senate Bill 2477 not only as the Representative from Peoria, but also the past president of the Peoria School System. This is a piece of legislation that is not only supported by our school board, but also our entire city council.

Wait, it is? Did I miss that meeting? Does anyone remember the “entire city council” expressing their support for this bill? Can Schock provide any evidence to support this statement? Of course, in Springfield there’s no one to dispute his assertions, so as far as the Illinois House is concerned, Peoria’s entire city council supports this bill. Schock continues:

And I certainly hope that we can have overwhelming, if not unanimous, support from this General Assembly. This really gives local control to our school board and to the Public Building Commission in Peoria. Right now, our Public Building Commission already has the authority to build libraries, to build prisons and jails, and we’re simply asking for that same authority be given back to our school system, which it has had for many years. All of the schools in our district in the recent history that have been built have been done so using the Public Building Commission.

And I believe that’s the very reason they took the power to bond for school construction away from the PBC, isn’t it? And what does he mean by “this really gives local control to our school board…”? Since when is getting approval from taxpayers in your own school district not considered a local decision? I’m guessing by “local control,” he means simply “control.” It takes control away from the voters and gives it to the school board. Back to Schock:

We have more inadequately housed students, according to state standards, more inadequately housed students in Peoria than any other school district in the state. I think it’s a shame right now that our Public Building Commission has the authority to house prisoners and jail inmates and give them adequate standards but we’re not giving that same authority to school children in our state. So, this only seems like common sense. I wanna thank Majority Leader Currie for her work on this Bill. It’s a commonsense piece of legislation, something that’s gonna really help Peoria. And I wanna say thank you to her for her willingness to take this cause on for the betterment of school children in Peoria. I urge a “yes” vote.

The common theme between Shadid and Schock is that our students in Peoria are “inadequately housed” according to state standards. You know what that standard is? Any students who are going to school in a building that is more than 67 years old are considered “inadequately housed.” That’s it. So, Schock is inadvertently right when he says, “this only seems like common sense.” Indeed. It’s isn’t really commonsense legislation, it only seems that way because of the way it has been presented.

There is more in the transcript that I would love to cover, and maybe I will in the future, but for now I want to point out one more thing. The main sponsor of this bill in the Illinois House was not Schock, but Barbara Flynn Currie (D-25th District). When she introduced the bill, she said, “This measure has the strong support of Peoria School District #150. I know of no opposition.”

No kidding. Who in Peoria would think to call Barbara Flynn Currie to express their opposition to this bill? But it does bring up a good point. Perhaps we should start writing to the entire Illinois General Assembly to express our opposition to this bill. And perhaps someone on the council (Mr. Spears?) could let the legislature know that the city council has never expressed their support for this bill. I’m sure the School Board won’t mind the city setting the record straight since they have made it perfectly clear they don’t value the city’s cooperation anyway.

Here’s where you can find a list of all the Representatives (http://www.ilga.gov/house/) and Senators (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/). Just tell them you want no taxation without representation, so please uphold the Governor’s veto of Senate Bill 2477.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission, State Legislation

District 150 & the Public Building Commission, Part 1

1 Comment

Do you think District 150 should be allowed to raise your taxes without a referendum?

If not, you’ll want to pay attention to this story. It’s not online, unfortunately, so here’s a lengthy quote from Clare Jellick’s story in the 10/3/2006 Journal Star titled, “Senator fighting Governor’s veto,” subhead, “Shadid supports bill for school construction”:

PEORIA — State Sen. George Shadid wants to override the Governor’s amendatory veto of a bill that benefits District 150, the senator said Monday.

The bill, originally sponsored by Shadid, allows the district to ask the Peoria Public Building Commission to issue bonds for school construction. The district plans to repay the bonds by restructuring its property tax levy, but the governor doesn’t want this method used without voter approval.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich considers this funding structure as raising taxes; District 150 does not, and Shadid is prepared to fight against the veto.

“(The School Board) is elected by the people in this community, so I’m going to take their word for it that they’re not going to raise taxes,” said Shadid, who initially supported the governor’s proposed changes.

The debate is over what’s considered raising taxes. The district intends to replace old bonds with new bonds, meaning that the tax rate will stay the same, but people will be paying the rate longer. If the district issued no new bonds, the tax rate would drop gradually starting next year.

The old bonds would be paid off completely by 2012. The district is proposing that the rate continue until 2015 at the earliest and 2020 at the latest.

“Could (taxpayers) enjoy a tax reduction without this (legislation)? The answer is clearly yes, but the school district clearly needs to build, and it needs to borrow to do it,” district treasurer Guy Cahill said Monday.

The School Board passed a resolution Monday to cap the tax rate, which is enough assurance for Shadid. He intends to use this during the fall veto session to make his case for the override.

“I feel comfortable with them giving me this resolution that they’re not going to raise the rate,” Shadid said.

[The Governor still stands by his amendatory veto.]

The soonest the amendment could be considered is November. A majority vote in both houses is needed to accept the change. A super-majority (three-fifths vote) in both houses would override Blagojevich’s veto and make the original version of the bill law.

A couple of comments are in order here. First, the school board passed a resolution saying they would cap the tax rate, and that’s enough assurance for Shadid that they won’t raise taxes. There are two obvious problems with this:

  1. The school board changes over time; just because this school board promises to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be overridden by a later board. And, of course, there’s nothing preventing this school board from reneging, either.
  2. Whether or not they promised a rate cap completely misses the point. The tax rate is supposed to go down starting next year. If it doesn’t, then the school board is clearly raising our taxes; Cahill even admitted it. The point is that tax increases such as this should be approved by the voters — you know, the ones who have to pay the taxes.

Secondly, Cahill claims “the school district clearly needs to build.” Oh? Kind of like they “clearly” needed to close Blaine-Sumner Middle School (built in 1927) because the building was so decrepit, yet once it was closed they were somehow miraculously able to immediately rehabilitate it for use as district offices, even adding air conditioning? If this was one of the worst (and since it was one of the first schools to be closed, we can only assume it was), then I’d say their schools aren’t in as bad of shape as we’ve been led to believe.

No, it’s not at all clear that the district needs to build. It’s crystal clear that they want to build. The fact that the district is trying to find a way around the voters only shows they are so certain the public won’t buy it, they’re not even going to attempt a referendum. Rather than go through the difficult work of proving their “need” for new buildings and the funding for them, then pursuading the public to pass a referendum, they’d rather pick taxpayers’ pockets.

And that’s what Senate Bill 2477, without the Governor’s amendatory veto, will allow them to do: pick our pockets. But why has the Illinois General Assembly been in favor of this bill in the first place? And what are the odds they’ll be able to override the Governor’s veto? I’ll explore some possible answers in my next post.

General News

K’s Merchandise is no more

7 Comments

The Journal Star reports that K’s Merchandise is going out of business — the whole chain. Liquidation sale starts Thursday.

K’s is practically right next to the Kellar Branch. Wouldn’t it be nice if a rail-served business (light industry, warehouse) moved into that property? Oh, wait, we can’t try to attract that kind of business because we want to take the rail line out and put in a bike path. Oh well. Maybe the car dealership next door will buy it.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools

More false hope from District 150?

5 Comments

Clare Jellick reports in the Journal Star today:

District 150 Superintendent Ken Hinton won’t continue buying properties near Glen Oak Park until he has time to talk to neighborhood groups and City Council members, he said Monday.

Hinton told the School Board Monday that he had originally intended to bring forth a recommendation at that meeting, but “for now that’s not going to take place.”

“I just want to talk to (people) and let them know where we are and what we’re thinking,” Hinton said after Monday’s meeting.

The implication is that Hinton is still trying to work out a compromise with the city and East Bluff neighbors. But if the last two counterproposals he offered the city are any indication, it’s likely this will simply be another attempt to pursuade everyone that putting the school next to a park is the best idea in education since the Dewey Decimal System.

But I’ll try to suppress my suspicion until I hear “where [they] are and what [they’re] thinking.” Maybe he’ll surprise us all.

Kellar Branch

And speaking of CIRY’s runaway train…

10 Comments

Central Illinois Railroad Company (CIRY) employee Thomas Stowers has filed suit against CIRY for injuries sustained in that incident. The suit was filed July 31 of this year in St. Clair County Circuit Court, but I only learned of it last night. The suit claims:

That on or about August 27, 2005, while working in Peoria, Illinois, plaintiff was operating a track mobile which failed injuries [sic] to plaintiff’s head, ribs, left elbow, left rotator cuff, and left shoulder, including the muscles, tendons, ligaments, cartilage, nerves, blood vessels, bones, and joints of these body parts.

Plaintiff states that his injuries and damages resulted in whole or in part from the negligent acts or omissions of the defendant….

This case is interesting because the police report from the night of the incident records that Stowers refused medical treatment. According to incident report PA 05-00026073, Officer Timothy Wong wrote (emphasis mine):

I [Wong] FOLLOWED [Allen] BROWN UNTIL WE CAME TO THE TRAIN CAR AND STOWERS WHO HAD JUMPED OFF OF THE TRAIN DURING IT’S TRAVEL FROM THE AREA OF PARK ST TO THE FOOT OF CAROLINE. STOWERS HAD ABRASIONS TO ALL AREA’S OF HIS BODY, HOWEVER RELATED THAT HE WAS FINE. STOWERS RELATED THAT HE WAS TRYING TO KEEP THE TRAIN UNDER CONTROL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, HOWEVER HE COULD NOT STOP THE TRAIN CAR AND JUMPED FROM IT, BEFORE IT STRUCK ANOTHER TRAIN CAR. A CODE 2 AMBULANCE WAS CALLED FOR HIM. STOWERS SIGNED A REFUSAL AND DECLINED MEDICAL ATTENTION. NO OTHER INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED BY ANY OTHER PARTY.

Sorry about the all caps — that’s the way it is in the report. In a supplement to this incident, Officer Winfred Fallert added this curious information (again, emphasis mine):

ON 08/30/2005 MYSELF [Fallert] AND SGT SWAIN WENT TO THE LOCATION OF THIS RAILROAD CRASH. WHILE THERE I SPOKE WITH [Steve] DRASSLER WHO IS EMPLOYED AS AN INSPECTOR WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION. DRASSLER INFORMED ME THAT THIS WAS A VERY MINOR INCIDENT THAT DID NOT EVEN REQUIRE THE RAILROAD TO INFORM THEM. THE MANDATORY REPORTING CRITERIA FOR RAILROAD CRASHES ARE DAMAGE IN EXCESS OF $6700.00 OR INJURY TO ANY PERSON REQUIRING MEDICAL TREATMENT. THE ESTIMATED DAMAGE IN THIS CASE IS APPROXIMATELY $5000 AND ALTHOUGH THE ENGINEER DID SUFFER MINOR INJURIES HE DID NOT SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION. DRASSLER ADDED THAT HE WAS ONLY AT THE SCENE BECAUSE HE RECEIVED AN “ANONYMOUS” PHONE CALL INFORMING HIM OF THIS INCIDENT.

Since there was no injury “requiring medical treatment” and damages were reportedly under $6,700, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) did not conduct a formal investigation of the incident. It almost makes one wonder if Stowers was coerced into refusing medical treatment. I mean, the guy was 46 years old, jumped from a runaway train (reported by one eyewitness to be traveling at approx. 30 mph) in the middle of downtown, had abrasions all over his body, yet refused medical treatment? Something’s fishy there.

Stowers wants to be awarded no less than $50,000 in damages and demands a trial by jury.

Kellar Branch

CIRY in breach of contract … again

11 Comments

Central Illinois Railroad Company (CIRY), the city’s contracted rail operator for the Kellar Branch and western spur, is no stranger to breaking its contract with the City of Peoria. It’s endangered the lives of Peorians with a runaway train and cost Carver Lumber over $60,000 in additional shipping fees, all with impunity. The city, despite its written promises to enforce service standards with CIRY, has stood quietly by and left Carver Lumber hung out to dry.

So now, CIRY is at it again. Why not? There haven’t been any consequences before, right? The following letter from Carver Lumber to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) was filed today. Keep in mind as you read it that the contract CIRY has with the city requires that they deliver railcars to Carver within 24 hours of those cars being placed on the western spur by Union Pacific:

Dear Mr. Williams [STB Secretary]:

We are, by this letter, respectfully requesting that the Board take immediate action to address the service failures of Central Illinois Railroad Company, and grant the Alternative Service Requestor Pioneer Industrial Railway Co. (“P1RY”).

As the Board knows, this matter has been pending for some time. Central Illinois Railroad Company (“CIRY”) is now taking retaliatory action against Carver Lumber Company for its support of PIRY’s Alternative Service Request, and its refusal to submit to becoming a captive shipper.

Specifically, we are informed and believe that Union Pacific Railroad delivered four cars to the CIRY interchange at Pioneer Junction on Monday, September 18 and/or Tuesday, September 19, 2006. Because the Carver employee who generally goes out to Pioneer Junction and checks for deliveries and informs CIRY that cars have been delivered was on vacation last week, we are informed and believe that nobody informed CIRY that cars were interchanged. Apparently, CIRY does not have the normal electronic data systems to inform it of interchanges, or such system is not being used.

In any event, Lee Miller phoned our shipper inquiring about the status of the cars, and was informed they were delivered to CIRY. Mr. Miller also received a highly offensive phone call on Friday, September 22, from “Ken,” a representative of Union Pacific. He told us to reject the cars or they would start charging demurrage. When Mr. Miller asked him if he had notified CtRY that the UP had dropped cars for us, he informed us that the UP has no obligation to contact CIRY when they drop cars. Mr. Miller then contacted CIRY’s engineer, Mike, who informed us that he had no knowledge of any cars for Carver and that CIRY was relying upon Carver to inform CIRY if there were cars at Pioneer Junction. This situation is ridiculous and needs immediate attention and resolution. Mr. Miller explained to Mike that we needed the cars immediately. He said he would have a crew out on Monday (today). Mr. Miller also placed a call to Ray Fuch’s that has not been returned.

As of the writing of this letter. 5:30 p.m. EDT, Monday, September 25, only two of the four cars have been delivered. We do not have a schedule for delivery of the other two cars. We have no idea why CIRY only delivered two cars. To make matters worse, the cars delivered were not the two cars we urgently need.

We also received an e-mail from another of our shippers (copy attached), claiming that “CIRY is a closed line and subject to further charges.” We are uncertain what this means, other than we will likely experience more trouble with our service.

Carver Lumber needed these cars last week. We reasonably believe that CIRY is either retaliating against us for bringing this matter to the Board’s attention or is grossly out of touch with their responsibilities as the common carrier railroad for our rail service, or both. We are also informed and believe that CIRY does not want to serve Pioneer Park, and desires to exit the property.

Carver Lumber Company desperately needs reliable rail service, and it is not getting such from CIRY. Carver respectfully urges the Board to act immediately to grant PIRY’s Alternative Service Request, and to act as expeditiously as possible to correct this situation permanently, by restoring PIRY’s authority over the Kellar Branch.

Sincerely,
Carver Lumber Company Board of Directors
Mark Booth, Debra Wolfe, Lee Miller

It’s bad enough that service over the western spur has been slower and more expensive already. This action (or, more precisely, inaction) only exacerbates the situation. If one were cynical, one would think the city was trying to run Carver Lumber out of town or out of business. That sure would make it easier for the city and park district to get their beloved hiking trail.