It’s official. The Journal Star has announced that the deal is closed and they are part of the Gatehouse Media family of newspapers. Also announced was that Ken Mauser is the publisher of the Journal Star (he had been interim publisher since December 2006).
So, you can take down the “Save the Journal Star” website and yard signs now.
In the never-ending Kellar Branch saga, there’s a legal battle going on before the Surface Transportation Board (STB).
When the STB reopened the adverse discontinuance proceeding (this is the one on whether Pioneer should be kicked off the Kellar Branch in favor of CIRY), it asked for further evidence from the City of Peoria, the Village of Peoria Heights, and Central Illinois Railroad Company (CIRY) by February 12, and a reply from Pioneer Industrial Railway (PIRY) and Carver Lumber by March 5. The City asked for an extension of time which the STB granted, moving the deadlines back to February 22 for the Cities/CIRY and March 15 for PIRY/Carver.
Well, everyone played by the rules and got their legal arguments in by the required dates. But since March 15, there have been all kinds of extra filings. Friends of the Rock Island Trail sent a pro-trail filing that was so erroneous and riddled with mistakes that it was comical, and Peoria Heights sent a letter stating the results of their consensus to continue supporting the trail (which I know they did conscientiously, but technically is against the rules).
Then, on April 4, the Cities/CIRY filed a reply to Pioneer’s reply. This is rarely allowed in STB proceedings, and requires that permission be granted by the STB for such a reply to be included in the record. The Cities/CIRY didn’t wait for permission. They filed their request for permission and their reply to PIRY/Carver’s reply on the same day.
The Cities/CIRY claim that “[b]ecause the responses filed by PIRY and Carver, respectively, contain numerous half truths and factual distortions, the Joint Parties are compelled to seek the Board’s leave to submit this Joint Reply.” PIRY/Carver countered that this filing:
…is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt by the Joint Parties [Cities/CIRY] to submit argument and evidence that was previously available to them but was not submitted in their February 22nd comments and is only now being introduced in order to further delay this proceeding and compensate for the paltry and one-dimensional filings that they have previously offered in this proceeding.
Pioneer goes on to accuse the Cities of deliberately delaying the proceeding in hopes that Carver Lumber will lose enough money that they have to close their Peoria facility, which would remove the “obstacle” to the Cities’ plans to turn the Kellar Branch into a walking path. They ask the Board to simply deny the request to add to the record now that all the deadlines are past.
If the Board decides to allow the “reply to a reply,” Pioneer asks for 20 days to offer their response to the accusations made by the Cities/CIRY. That seems reasonable, since it was clearly the STB’s intent to provide equal time for both sides.
I just find it ironic that Pioneer is always painted as the villain that doesn’t follow the rules and obstructs things, and yet through this proceeding, they’ve managed to meet all their deadlines and it’s the Cities and other trail proponents that continue to flaunt the STB’s procedures. I suppose that’s to be expected, since they have no respect for the STB or the importance of interstate rail service in general.
Within the Land Development Code (LDC) there are four “form districts.” Those districts are the Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, the West Main Corridor, the Prospect Road Corridor, and the Warehouse District. These four areas underwent intense study and a customized form-based code was created for each district. Each area is essentially pre-planned by citizens through the charrette process and codified by the city’s consultants, Farrell Madden Associates.
Last night the City Council adopted the form-based codes for the four form districts (this includes the regulating plan and illustrative plan for each).
However, the LDC code for the rest of the Heart of Peoria Plan Area outside those form districts — i.e., the vast majority of the Heart of Peoria Plan Area — is not ready for prime time yet. The council tabled it until staff can make some revisions.
Here’s the issue. The portion of the LDC outside of the form districts (we’ll call this area a “base district” to distinguish it from a “form district”) was not subjected to the kind of intense study that the form districts were. The form districts are kind of like a new house — it’s a code built from scratch to the citizens’ specifications. The base district is like an old house with a little remodeling work done on it to bring it up to code — it’s basically our existing zoning ordinance with some modifications to make it more “new urbanist” (such as allowances for mixed use, urban setback regulations, etc.).
To continue the metaphor, the council wasn’t happy with the old house simply being brought up to code. They know we can’t afford to develop full-fledged form-based codes in all 8,000 acres of the Heart of Peoria Plan area, but they nevertheless felt the base districts did not go far enough. Specifically, the base district regulations don’t address the problems that are hindering reinvestment in older neighborhoods.
Gary Sandberg gives a good example. If you want to build a garage, the code says you can build one that is similar to other garages in your neighborhood. There’s a reason for this: you want to have some amount of consistency in your neighborhood. If everyone on your block has detached garages with alley access, you don’t want one house to have an attached garage with street access — it would be totally out of character for the neighborhood.
The problem is, you may live in a neighborhood where they used to have garages, but almost all of them have been razed, so now there are essentially no garages. Then what? Can you not have a garage? Or what if all the garages in your part of town are one-stall, and you want a two-stall garage? Are we going to make people build a one-stall garage or have to get variance to built a two-stall? The danger is that if there are too many hoops to jump through — if there are too many places for the City to tell people “no” — it discourages reinvestment.
There are also some potential conflicts with existing ordinances. Sandberg (who apparently has all city ordinances memorized) pointed out that the street ordinance prohibits private development within 100 feet of the centerline of a thoroughfare, yet the LDC allows (and in some cases requires) infill commercial development be built right up to the sidewalk. That needs to be reconciled.
I’m worried that the LDC is going to languish. It was not the intent of the council to have it languish, but we have to face reality. A major revision of the city’s comprehensive plan is coming up, and that’s the next big project on which Planning & Growth is going to focus. There’s no budget left for our consultants to revise the LDC. So staff is going to have to do the work, but when? Some council members believe staff should be able to do both. I don’t know enough about how they’re organized or what their work load is to make that determination.
But I do know that it would be a real shame and an excuse for further cynicism about local government if the LDC were left on the table too long or, worse, forgotten. Somehow this needs to stay on the front burner and get done soon before it loses momentum.
PeoriaIllinoisan has been keeping an eye on Maplewood, and there’s progressively less and less to look at. Bradley didn’t waste any time before starting in on the demolition. The definition of progress around here is tearing down century-old homes in a stable neighborhood to make way for a parking deck. Bradley will wither and die without this parking deck, so it’s a fair trade, they say.
Last night the City Council unanimously approved replacing the arbor at Rebecca and Main. Second district councilwoman Barbara Van Auken said that this was to show that the City is not only committed to the success of its institutions, but also committed to strong neighborhoods. I’m happy they’re getting their arbor rebuilt, but comparing this gesture to what the City allowed Bradley to do is unbalanced, to say the least. Is replacement of the arbor worth a whole block of houses plus the conversion of dozens of remaining properties to rental homes? My guess is the neighborhood would rather forget the arbor and have Maplewood back.
Incidentally, I found out that material salvaged from those homes will be resold through Habitat for Humanity’s ReStore.