Daily Archives: May 27, 2007

Peoria Housing Authority, Peoria Public Schools

Will D150 swap Prospect properties for Harrison land?

8 Comments

Peoria Housing Authority LogoIn April 2006, the Peoria Housing Authority (PHA) was talking to Peoria Public School District 150 about possibly swapping some land. The idea was that the PHA would give District 150 some land near Harrison Primary School for the District’s plans to construct a replacement building there, and in return, District 150 would give the PHA the site of the current Glen Oak School so the PHA could build public housing in the East Bluff.

Well, there was quite a bit of outrage over that plan, and before long, the PHA said emphatically that they were not interested in the site and those negotiations were halted. Not long after that, the Park Board also decided it didn’t want to enter into a land-sharing agreement with District 150 to use a portion of Glen Oak Park for a new East Bluff school.

Since then, District 150 switched tactics and started negotiating to simply purchase the land from the PHA outright rather than swap land for it. But that has led to a big discrepancy between what PHA is asking ($800,000) and the appraised value of the land ($178,000).

So now we have to ask, what’s the next step?

One rumor is that the land-swap idea is going to reemerge, only this time it will be some of the properties the District bought adjacent to Glen Oak Park that will be traded, allowing the PHA to build public housing in the East Bluff after all. Rumor has it that Superintendent Hinton favors this option. It’s unclear whether the properties would be bundled with (a) other District-owned properties elsewhere in the city, (b) a cash offer, or (c) both.

PHA officials have stated that the reason their asking price for the land is so high is because that land swap the District was originally going to do required that all land involved be free of buildings. That’s why the PHA razed the buildings on the land adjacent to Harrison School. When the District decided to do a direct buy, the PHA felt that it deserved some compensation for the demolition it did on the District’s behalf.

What that tells me is that any land that would be swapped would have to be free of buildings. If there’s a plan in the works to swap land adjacent to Glen Oak Park, that could explain why the school district is aggressively pursuing demolition of the houses on those properties instead of renovating them and putting them back on the market to try to recoup some of the money they wasted.

Muni WiFi

Muni WiFi Networks: “They are the monorails of this decade”

12 Comments

The Journal Star ran two Associated Press articles on municipal wireless fidelity (Muni WiFi) networks, and neither article was very complimentary of the systems. It seems they’re not living up to their hype.

“They are the monorails of this decade: the wrong technology, totally overpromised and completely undelivered,” said Anthony Townsend, research director at the Institute for the Future, a think tank.

In other words, they have the appearance of being progressive and modern, but lack practicality when actually built out. Some of the problems identified in the main article:

  • Lack of subscribers. There’s not as much interest in a Muni WiFi network as boosters thought;
  • Threat of taxpayer bailout. “Cities might end up running the systems if companies abandon networks they built”;
  • Number of antennas needed underestimated. Some cities have had to double or triple the number of access points to provide adequate coverage, “adding roughly $1 million” to estimated costs;
  • Trouble penetrating buildings. For a variety of reasons, including stucco homes that “have a wire mesh that blocks signals” and just general poor penetration, subscribers have to buy a $150 signal booster to use the service in their homes or offices;
  • Slow connection speeds. According to the article, the speed can be slower than cable and DSL;
  • Limited features. A home-business user said her local WiFi service “lacks key features she gets through DSL.”
  • Competition from private enterprise. “…[J]ust as Lompoc [Calif.] committed to the network, cable and telephone companies arrived with better equipment and service, undercutting the city’s offerings.”

Other than that, it’s a great system. Missing from the article was any mention of a large influx of “creative class” workers who moved into these communities because of their cutting-edge Muni WiFi systems. I doubt it was an oversight. Most likely the “creative class” values many of the same things as the “uncreative class”: safe neighborhoods, good schools, low taxes, business/employment opportunities, etc. I doubt anyone is going to move here just for the free wireless access, if it’s ever offered.

My favorite comment came from a Portland (Ore.) blogger in the companion article:

“For me ubiquitous access means I don’t have to base my life around wherever my office is,” DuVander said. “I tried it out as soon as I could and found that it wasn’t for me. The quality of the connection is not up to my standards.”

I’ll bet that if/when Peoria rolls out Muni WiFi, a certain local Peoria blogger will have a similar take on that system. Probably his big complaint will be that he gets poor reception in Pottstown. 🙂