After the kids went to bed, my wife and I spent some time looking up videos from the ’80s on YouTube and reminiscing about where we were when each song was popular. You laugh, but we actually had a lot of fun. That’s what happens after you have three kids. I know, it’s sad, really, now that I think about it. Pathetic, even. I can’t believe I’m sharing it, upon further reflection.
Oh well, what the heck. Remember this one?
I received this communication today from our neighborhood association about the planned Math, Science and Technology Academy. The note at the beginning is from Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken:
Attached is an update on the Math Science and Technology Academy project. Mike Dugard, Rod Lorenz, Michael Keck and I (along with a number of other academic, business, medical, research and civic representatives) serve on the Advisory Committee to District 150 for this wonderful venture.
Best regards,
Barbara— Attachment follows–
Coming to Peoria: a Math, Science and Technology (MSTA) Academy
Providing educational choice and meeting forecasted workforce demands, Peoria Public Schools leads the development of a Math, Science and Technology Academy, with a hopeful opening in 2010. Projected voids of skilled workers in health care, engineering, manufacturing and construction, all requiring beyond 12th grade skills in math, science and technology, has directed the MSTA focus. The Board of Education has designated a site located in the heart of technology development, Renaissance Park, and has earmarked funding for renovations to the facility.
Working together as a team, representatives from health care, higher education, parents, manufacturing and technology companies, city government, neighborhood associations, educators, and city leaders, have come together to research and gather input from the community. The team is committed to opening a world class Math, Science and Technology Academy to serve as a model educational program as well as contribute to the economic growth of our community. Members from the Advisory Team have visited schools as far away as California and as close as Chicago, Indianapolis and St. Louis, with more visits planned soon.
What might the MSTA look like?
- Students throughout the city in grades 4th – 12th grade interested in math, science and technology could apply with 450 students being selected using a lottery process
- Cutting edge best practices in teaching and learning with the infusion of technology and project based learning will drive the development of the model
- The cultural environment will foster collaborative learning to encourage student inquiry, problem solving, accountability, and the development of ethical leaders
- The environment will energize students and teachers to rise to higher levels of achievement
- Student learning would go beyond the classroom and extend to world-class mentorship and internship experiences with scientists, scholars, entrepreneurs at laboratories, universities, hospitals, and companies throughout the Peoria area
- Longer school day , school year and opportunities for Saturday instruction will allow for differentiated instruction to build skill development both for remediation and acceleration
- The school could serve as a professional development center for other schools to bring outstanding practices in math, science and technology
Why look at the MSTA being a Charter School?
- Components of charter schools directly align with components identified by the Advisory Committee for the components of the MSTA
- Charter Schools bring choice to parents, provide autonomy and flexibility at the school level to support innovation, support partnerships with parents and the community, and operate on a multi-tiered accountability system
- The ultimate goal of charter schools is to lead public education to unprecedented levels of high academic achievement for all students
Stay tuned for more information on the development of this incredible opportunity for our students … for our community!
Xcoins has diligently offered their help with your investments in our children’s future. The site they describe as “located in the heart of technology development, Renaissance Park,” is the Adult Education Center on the corner of Moss and Garfield avenues (fka Washington School):
From the City of Peoria:
On Monday, November 10, the City Council was presented with an updated budget proposal that reduced a potential budget deficit from $2,183,163 to $117,771. We have attached the entire packet of information given to the Council that night, which includes a transmittal memo, line item breakdown of reductions and additions, narrative and various other tables. At Council’s direction, staff continues to work to close this gap without cutting services to citizens or raising taxes. A final balanced budget will be presented to Council on Tuesday, November 25, 2008.
In addition to sending you this information electronically, we have also updated www.peoriabudget.com.
The Times-Observer did a nice editorial piece in response to my post-election Constitutional Convention reaction.
Before getting into the meat of it, let me explain my most-criticized comment, which was: “Well, I don’t want to hear any complaints about state government from anyone who voted against the Con Con. You had your chance to improve things, and you blew it.” Some have taken this to mean that I want to somehow limit their free speech to complain about state government. Not so. Complain away. I just said I don’t want to hear it, which is another way of saying you’ll get no sympathy from me.
Now, as for the arguments against the Constitutional Convention (“con-con,” for short), here’s the thing I don’t understand. What harm would it have done?
According to the Times-Observer, “we cannot trust anything coming out of Springfield”; they then go on to compare a con-con to the electricity deregulation debacle. The Peoria chapter of the League of Women Voters’ spokesperson said, “Special interests, current political dysfunction in Springfield and party politics may gain control of the delegate election/selection process, as well as deliberations. Results may be unrepresentative of voters’ concerns.”
These statements indicate to me that these people evidently do not know how a con-con works. Delegates to the convention cannot be legislators. There would be a separate election of delegates. Furthermore, the proposed constitution that would come out of the con-con would have to be approved by the voters. That’s why it’s not anything like the electricity deregulation debacle.
Those who worry that “results may be unrepresentative of voters’ concerns” are showing a lack of faith in voters, who are ultimately they themselves. They’re saying that democracy is too scary, and there are too many potential pitfalls. Better to stick with what we’ve got. I, for one, am glad that our founding fathers didn’t have such fear when they decided to write the U. S. Constitution instead of sticking with the Articles of Confederation.
But, you might object, the voters are the ones who gave us Michael Madigan and Emil Jones — how can we trust such voters? I would direct you to a political map of Illinois and see how the district boundaries are drawn. It’s a textbook case of gerrymandering. The legislators carve up the state in such a way that they are literally choosing their voters, instead of the voters choosing their legislators. But with a statewide referendum, gerrymandering loses its power. It’s a straight popular vote.
Ironically, gerrymandering is an issue that the League of Women Voters is concerned about. Yet they shot down a process whereby they could tackle the problem head-on. They would rather stick with the status quo — where redistricting reform bills are sent to the “Rules” committee to die — rather than risk a con-con.
And that’s really their whole argument: it’s too risky. Well, life is risky. Voting against the con-con didn’t alleviate Illinoisans of any risk. It just ensured that the current risks would remain, and they have.
The Times-Observer quotes Shakespeare as saying, “The devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape,” as if one option is the devil and the other isn’t. The truth is, the devil is in both options, pro and con. Voters simply chose the devil they knew instead of the devil they didn’t know.
From the Journal Star:
With little debate, the Illinois Senate today voted 51-4 to send Gov. Rod Blagojevich a proposal to let Peoria County ask voters to OK a special sales tax to help pay for the Peoria riverfront museum.
The legislation, Senate Bill 1290, passed earlier in the House of Representatives. With Blagojevich’s signature, it would become law, and the question could be put to voters in the February or April municipal elections.
Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the bill allows increases in 1/4% increments, and could be used toward any “public facility” (e.g., Belwood Nursing Home), not just the museum. The way it will likely read on the ballot is:
To pay for public facility purposes, shall Peoria County be authorized to impose an increase on its share of local sales taxes by .25% (.0025) for a period not to exceed (insert number of years)?
This would mean that a consumer would pay an additional 25¢ ($0.25) in sales tax for every $100 of tangible personal property bought at retail. If imposed, the additional tax would cease being collected at the end of (insert number of years), if not terminated earlier by a vote of the county board.”
A quarter of a percent increase doesn’t sound like a whole lot, does it? But consider that, if this referendum were to pass, you would be paying .25% more on things that already are highly taxed — like restaurant food (which would go from 10% to 10.25% in the city). Is that going to make Peoria more or less competitive than East Peoria, right across the river? How many people do you think will come to see the museum in Peoria, then go have lunch in East Peoria?
And what about the economy? Is this the time to be increasing taxes when there’s plenty of unemployed people? What is the city’s solution on how to decrease the unemployment rate?
Consider these other items in the news as of late:
It’s time to use all that advertising money to come up with another plan — one that doesn’t involve raising taxes.
From a press release:
Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 1:00 p.m.
Peoria High School Gymnasium
1615 N. North St.The Peoria Riverfront Museum will announce plans for the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) Peak Performance Center. Join us as we share the unique experiences this exhibit area will offer visitors.
Speakers include:
Mariah Hart, Peoria High School
Jim Richerson, Lakeview Museum of Arts & Sciences
Marty Hickman, Illinois High School Association
Chuck Buescher, Bradley University
Brent Lonteen, Peoria Area Convention & Visitors Bureau
Also, have you seen the TV ads for “Build the Block”? I just saw one for the first time last night. I wonder how much this latest fundraising campaign is costing them. Between the full-page ads in the paper and television advertising, it can’t be cheap.
From the Journal Star:
The Downtown AMVETS building should be considered a historic landmark and preserved for future uses, the city’s historic preservation commission decided this morning.
With a 4-2 vote, the commission endorsed an application from the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation to landmark the building at 237 NE Monroe St.
The City Council has the final vote on the landmarking status and is scheduled to do so on Nov. 25.
I have mixed feelings about this. I really do. On the one hand, I agree with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) that this building should be landmarked. After reading the application, I believe a solid case was made for preserving this 1916 building originally known as the United Duroc Building.
But on the other hand, the timing couldn’t have been worse. The AMVETS need to move, and they had their plans all set. They were going to move to the former Penguin Tap in Peoria Heights. Riverside Community Church was going to buy their downtown building, raze it, and build a new children’s wing. All the arrangements had been made and all they needed to do was close the deal. And then this historic preservation request was filed and scuttled everyone’s plans.
That has made for a lot of hard feelings. It’s no small irony that this happened to a veterans group. “Post 64 Commander Richard Mitchell said the vote was ‘another example of rights we fought for being taken away from us,'” reported the Journal Star.
I hope that preservation groups recognize the spot they put people and organizations in when they wait until the last minute to file preservation applications. Instead of waiting until the wrecking ball is at the door, it would be better if these groups were more proactive. There are a finite number of buildings in Peoria that are worthy of historic designation; make a list, submit it, and be done with it.
From a press release:
For the past five months the City Council has been engaged in an intensive search process for a permanent City Manger. The process produced several excellent candidates. We interviewed three well-qualified individuals. One candidate was a consensus choice of the council. Two weeks ago the City Council offered the position to Mr. Eric Stuckey, Assistant County Administrator of Hamilton County, Ohio (Cincinnati). Mr. Stuckey was very impressed with the opportunity in Peoria and visited with us on two occasions. He was also interviewing for a similar position and in the end he selected a position in Franklin, Tennessee because of family considerations.
Based on past City Manager search experience, and with the advice of our consultant Jim Mercer, the City Council has elected to postpone further search activities until after the first of the year. The coming holidays, ongoing national economic concerns and local spring elections would all suggest suspending the search a couple months.
The City is fortunate to have a seasoned administrative team in place with leadership by Interim City Manger Henry Holling. The City Council and staff have continued to move Peoria city government forward. Important projects and critical services are progressing. We will have a balanced budget for 2009 in very challenging economic times with no service cuts and no tax increases.
Our plan is to continue the present Interim City Manger arrangement and remain focused on our vision of an excellent quality of urban life … vibrant, progressive, diverse and welcoming.
Since I started writing on this proposed hotel project, I’ve gotten some calls and e-mails about issues directly and indirectly related to it. Rather than put up an individual post on each item, I’ve decided to just lump it all together under “Odds and Ends.”
Details, Details
I was contacted by a person who is close to the hotel project but wishes to remain anonymous. He told me a lot of the same things Billy has already mentioned in this post, but he added some information and elaborated on other issues:
Historic Buildings on Main?
I’ve already had inquiries as to whether there will be an attempt to save any of the buildings the developers want to raze:
No doubt some people are just being facetious. But guess what? There has been a fight over historic buildings on this very block in the recent past.
In March 1993, Duane Cassano announced he wanted to raze the circa-1848 building at 531-533 Main because it was crumbling. He struck a deal with the Central Illinois Landmark Foundation, saying he’d replace the building with an “authentic 19th century facade.” Everyone was happy.
And then, in August 1993, Cassano reneged, saying it would be too expensive to do what he’d promised. Instead, he put up a “wood decking” facade. While he was chastised verbally by the city council, it doesn’t appear from published reports that there were any real consequences for going back on his promise.
I have no idea if any of the other remaining buildings have any historic value or if anyone is preparing a last-minute application to the Historic Preservation Commission. I wouldn’t recommend it, though. Anyone who gets in the way of this project is liable to get run over.
As expected, the adult use ordinance change was approved by the council 8-2 (Jacob abstaining, Sandberg and Nichting voting against) and the Class A liquor licenses for 500 Main St. (former Euro Jack’s) and 414 Hamilton were approved 9-1 (Jacob abstaining, Sandberg voting against).
But what’s really interesting to me is some of the rhetoric that is reported from last night. Unfortunately, I couldn’t attend the meeting, and of course it wasn’t broadcast since it was held on a Monday this week. But according to the Journal Star, WEEK.com, and 1470 WMBD, the council members said this:
Ardis said the potential of Big Al’s moving opens up the possibility of “one of the biggest projects that could happen Downtown since the Civic Center.”
At-large Councilman Eric Turner, however, said the votes were based on an issue of what is best for Downtown Peoria, saying that it was “dying” and losing out in economic development to East Peoria.
“The issue is not about Big Al’s, but it’s about economic development,” Turner said. “We stand to lose if we don’t make changes and start looking out for the economic development future of this city.”
Ardis says the reason the public doesn’t know more about the proposed development is because the plan has not been brought before the council yet.
“Nothing is what it appears to be until it appears to be what it is. We really don’t have all the details about this project and as time passes they’ll no more about it and they’ll be more comfortable with what were proposing to do,” says Clyde Gulley Jr.
Mayor Ardis made it a point to remind citizens that Big Al’s is doing the city a huge favor by agreeing to change locations.
In other words, even though we the citizens know nothing officially about this new development, we need to change ordinances and okay liquor licenses to make it happen based on blind faith in the city council. Even though this hotel project “has not been brought before the council yet,” according to Mayor Ardis, all the council people know about it because they’ve been skirting around the Open Meetings Act by meeting with the developer two at a time. That engenders a lot of trust, doesn’t it?
It’s clear from the comments above that the justification for approving the liquor licenses and the change to the adult use ordinance was to make way for a development project that is still being kept a secret from the public. Without the hotel project connected to it, these requests never would have passed the council. Thus, I think the citizens have a right to know what this project is that is influencing the council. I mean, if this isn’t a back-room deal, I don’t know what is.
Don’t get me wrong. This hotel may indeed be a “wonderful development,” as Randy Ray described it. I’m not prejudging the project. I’m just saying that the council is not acting with transparency on public policy issues, and that’s not good governance.
One other thing that I can’t resist commenting on: Downtown Peoria is “dying,” according to Councilman Turner. Dying? You mean the original Civic Center, Civic Center expansion, Riverfront Village, ballpark, Riverplex, etc., etc., have all been abject failures? So noted.