Monthly Archives: October 2010

City of Peoria, Peoria Police

On second thought, maybe we do have too many police officers

25 Comments

It wasn’t that long ago that the police were needing lots of overtime and help from the state police to handle violent hot spots in the City. But now it looks like they’ve got nothing better to do than conduct sting operations on people smoking in bars.

The Journal Star article says that “smoking violations [are] administrative in nature and not criminal,” and are adjudicated through “a complicated, quasi-judicial administrative system set up through the Illinois Department of Public Health.” So my question is, why are the police involved in the process at all? Why isn’t the health department sending inspectors into these bars like they do for restaurant inspections?

City Council, City of Peoria

Liveblogging the City Council 10/26/2010

6 Comments

Hello! I’m coming to you live from Peoria City Hall, Council Chambers. I’ll be updating this post throughout the evening, so be sure to refresh your browser regularly to see the latest updates. Here’s tonight’s agenda:

ITEM NO. 1 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BY OMNIBUS VOTE, for the City of Peoria, with Recommendations as Outlined:

A. TAG DAY REQUEST from the KOREAN WAR VETERANS OF AMERICA, PEORIA CHAPTER #243, Requesting Permission to Sell KOREAN WAR DAISIES in the City of Peoria on FRIDAY and SATURDAY, JUNE 17 and 18, 2011. (Dates are open.)

B. Communication from the City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Enter Into an AGREEMENT with PNC BANK for RENEWAL BANKING SERVICES for ONE YEAR, Commencing January 1, 2011, Under Terms of the Existing One Year Contract with PNC BANK with Specific 2011 Modifications; and Requesting Execution of an ADDENDUM to Incorporate Specific CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS Outlined in PNC Bank’s Attached 2011 Contract Extension Proposal.

C. Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of an INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT with ILLINOIS CENTRAL COLLEGE Pertaining to MUTUAL AID Between POLICE DEPARTMENTS.

D. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting Approval of a SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT to the 2010 HUD ANNUAL ACTION PLAN to REALLOCATE $100,000.00 of HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP GRANT (HOME) FUNDS from a Subgrantee Project to the DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE (DPA) PROGRAM.

E. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting an INCREASE in the BUDGETED AMOUNT for the MacARTHUR APARTMENT PROJECT by $8,000.00 in CDBG FUNDS.

F. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Granting a SPECIAL USE in a Class C2 (Large Scale Commercial) District for a RADIO TOWER for the Property Located at 2006 W. ALTORFER DRIVE, with Conditions.

G. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works with Request to Receive and File the UPDATED 2010 – 2011 SNOW REMOVAL AND ICE CONTROL PLAN.

H. APPOINTMENTS by Mayor Jim Ardis to the PLANNING COMMISSION, with Request to Concur.

Kelley A. Lemons (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2012

I. APPOINTMENTS by Mayor Jim Ardis to the ADVISORY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RESOURCES, with Request to Concur.

Katherine Coyle (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2012
Judith L. Oakford (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2013

J. APPOINTMENTS by Mayor Jim Ardis to the FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING COMMISSION, with Request to Concur.

Jerrodean D. Ashby (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2012
Sherry Ellis-Smith (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2013
Verma Harris (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2013

Items removed from the consent agenda by the council person noted in parentheses: Item B (Riggenbach). The remaining items passed unanimously.

  • Item B — Riggenbach is upset about the cost of the City’s banking services. The City has about $50 million in 20 different accounts on deposit at PNC, Riggenbach says, and it’s a “very attractive piece of business for a financial institution.” He says the “earnings credit rate” has dropped significantly, resulting in an extra $20,000 in banking fees from PNC. Recommends putting out an RFP for banking services; says we saved over $30,000 the last time we did that in 2005. Complains that this is coming to the Council at the last minute — too late to put this out for RFP. He moves to approve, but adds a stipulation that the staff bring back an RFP before September next year on this issue.

    Sandberg asks staff why they didn’t put this out for an RFP this year. Finance Director Scroggins says an RFP was done in 2008, and none of the other banks qualified. PNC worked with the City and gave them a very good earnings rate at that time. Because of the recession, the market is not good right now for looking at banking services, so they felt it was most prudent to bring this up for a one-year extension this year and do an RFP next year. Sandberg asks why no bank could satisfy our requirements the last time we went out for an RFP. Are our requirements reasonable? Response from Scroggins: It’s not that they couldn’t, but that they wouldn’t meet our requirements. Sandberg again challenges the requirements. Treasurer Nichting says another factor is that there’s not much demand for money right now because of tight credit markets. Says PNC is offering the City a good deal right now, and is giving us good quality of service.

    Van Auken says her issue is not with staff’s decision per se, but rather that they don’t share it with the Council until October, at the 11th hour. Staff should tell the Council to keep them in the loop within enough time for the Council to redirect staff if they disagree with staff’s direction. Riggenbach concurs with Van Auken. Ardis says the same thing happened a couple weeks ago regarding an insurance contract, and says Council wants to see change from the staff.

    Motion passes unanimously.

ITEM NO. 2 Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of the AMENDMENT to the 1996 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Between the City of Peoria and the PEORIA CIVIC CENTER AUTHORITY, Said Amendment Pertaining to HRA TAX WITHHOLDING, and Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the Amendment.

Spain moves to defer until December 14, seconded by Van Auken. Passes unanimously.

ITEM NO. 3 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Vacating Approximately 507 FEET of the ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY on the NORTHERN END of Said ALLEY Located Between SPRING STREET and CAROLINE STREET, and Between N.E. ADAMS STREET and BOND STREET.

Gulley says this is a project “we’ve been working on for a number of years.” Moves to approve, seconded by Riggenbach. Gulley asks privilege of the floor for anyone to address the council on this issue.

  • William Ordaz — Represents Detweiller Marina Neighborhood Association. Requests that the council deny this action. He addresses the same concerns I reported in my previous post. Says that when TIFs are significantly changed, it must go before the Joint Review Board, and that hasn’t happened with the northside TIF. For example, the S-curve that was part of the TIF and has now been removed — that’s a significant change to the TIF that was never brought before the Joint Review Board, he says. He’s also concerned about lack of transparency. Asks the council if they’re really for core neighborhoods.

Sandberg says he’s “perplexed” because the communication says the alley vacation is the “first step” in an expansion project. The first step should be meeting with neighbors, applying for rezoning, etc. Also is wondering when the City has ever approved a partial alley vacation. (Rhetorical question.) He says it’s never happened because we have policies and procedures against it. Are we just doing it because it’s a $15 million project? “Are we just whores?” he asks.

Gulley says this is not a $15 million project, so that’s not the driving issue. The item before us is vacation of the alley. Also says no business is going to spend money on architectural drawings, etc., if they don’t have their parcels assembled to do the project. He says this is a “simple vacation of an alley” and that it is allowed in a TIF. In this case, the first step is vacating the alley. The next step is to develop site plans and drawings for the project. Then we can meet with the neighbors to talk about site approval and how it fits into the neighborhood and take care of the concerns brought forward.

Sandberg reiterates that we’re only vacating part of an alley. Gulley says we did the same thing on Third Street, which starts an argument with Sandberg that Ardis breaks up. Sandberg then moves for one-month deferral, seconded by Spain. Gulley says there are problems with the deferral because we want to move forward, and a deferral will put us into December and delay the project, which will cause us to miss opportunities. Says the “problems” that have been brought forth are not really problems, and are no reason to hold up the project. Argues that it should be passed tonight. A motion to defer would be “anti-business” in Peoria, he says.

Ardis says this hinges on precedent because of the length of the alley vacation and safety of egress. Public Works Director Barber steps forward and says we’ve had meetings on this alley “a year or two ago when this first came up.” Says there’s a long dead-end alley off Wisconsin at Republic, etc. Says the neighbors at this location (under discussion tonight) do not have any concerns. Van Auken asks if police and fire were involved in this meeting. Barber says he doesn’t remember. Spears asks if property owners have changed in the past two years since the last neighborhood meeting. Barber says yes — O’Brien bought several neighbors’ property so he now owns the property on both sides of the alley all the way to Jim’s Autobody.

Spain is still concerned and wants information on what the new project is. Says he will support the deferral. Also says that the alley vacation shouldn’t be seen as a deal-killing threat. If the council okays the alley vacation, it doesn’t mean they’re any more or less likely to support the expansion plan.

Deferral passes 8-2 (Gulley and Montelongo voting nay).

ITEM NO. 4 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to Adopt the Following:

A. ORDINANCE Amending APPENDIX B of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to FEES; and
B. ORDINANCE Amending APPENDIX C of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to FEES.

Spain/Turner move to approve 4A; passes unanimously.
Spain/Van Auken move to approve 4B; passes unanimously. No discussion either item.

ITEM NO. 5 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to Adopt the Following:

A. ORDINANCE Amending APPENDIX B of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to VEHICLE PARKING and STORAGE; and

B. ORDINANCE Amending APPENDIX C of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to VEHICLE PARKING and STORAGE.

Van Auken/Turner move to approve 5A. Sandberg says he’s concerned about unintended consequences of this action. Says that it may result in more of these vehicles being parked on the street instead of on a person’s private property. Also says enforcement would be difficult, if not impossible, because these regulations will impact small vehicles as well as large ones, when it was the large vehicles the ordinance was intended to impact. Nevertheless, motion passes 9-1 (Gulley).

Van Auken/Turner move to approve 5B. Passes unanimously.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(10-068) Communication from the City Manager and Acting Director of Human Resources Requesting Approval to ENTER into an AGREEMENT Between the CITY OF PEORIA and all EMPLOYEE BARGAINING UNITS to EXTEND the JOINT LABOR/MANAGEMENT HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE for (3) YEARS, Effective January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013.

Spain moves for four-week deferral, seconded by Van Auken. Passes unanimously with no discussion.

(10-391) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to DEFER this Item Relating to WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES Until NOVEMBER 9, 2010, AND Request to EXTEND the MORATORIUM on the ISSUANCE of NEW PERMITS and APPROVALS. (New Communication)

Van Auken/Turner move to approve; passes unanimously without discussion.

(10-464) Communication from the City Manager Requesting for the City Council to Provide Direction to the Administration on the PRELIMINARY FY2011 OPERATING BUDGET.

City Manager Scott Moore asks that the item be deferred. Spain says he’s concerned about the amount of work left to do before a budget needs to be approved, and there are many items that need to be addressed soon. Moore says he’s still gathering information and wants to make sure Council has all the information they need to make decisions. Van Auken wants more analysis on why departments are suggesting certain fee increases — i.e., how did they come up with the amounts they’re suggesting?

Van Auken moves to defer the item until November 9, seconded by Spain; passes unanimously.

(10-465) Communication from the City Manager Requesting Direction to Staff Regarding POTENTIAL INCREASES to VARIOUS FEES and FINES.

Spain moves to defer until November 9, seconded by Irving; passes unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENTS Regarding FY 2011 CITY OF PEORIA BUDGET.

No one from the public speaks to the council on this item.

NEW BUSINESS

  • Turner says that he and Gulley will have a small business workshop on Saturday, Nov. 6 from 9-12 at Frank Campbell Community Center. Also thanks those involved in the recent Code Enforcement public meeting.

CITIZEN REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL

  • Savino Sierra — Speaks in favor of keeping police and fire department personnel from being cut in the budget. Also spoke in favor of O’Brien Steel’s yet-to-be-revealed expansion plans. Says sidewalks around schools flood when it rains hard. Says the City was supposed to fix them three years ago, but hasn’t done it yet.
  • Peg Pendell (sp?) — Speaks against Item No. 5 that passed tonight. Also speaks against membership in neighborhood organizations and I guess neighborhood organizations in general. She made a big point of saying she’s not a member “by choice.” She said Planning & Growth Director Pat Landes said that Item 5 was discussed with the public at neighborhood association meetings in June. She was offended/outraged that this was the way it was presented to the public. Threatens a “peasant revolt” if there isn’t more transparency in government.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

There is an executive session, but the public meeting is adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Good night, all. Next Tuesday is election day, so no council meeting is planned.

City Council, City of Peoria

O’Brien Steel expansion: proposed or not proposed?

21 Comments

Neighbors in the near north side and Averyville area are wary of Item No. 3 on tonight’s City Council agenda.

The item itself is fairly innocuous. O’Brien Steel wants the City to vacate the alley behind their Adams St. property. O’Brien owns the property on both sides of the alley. They’ve cleared recently-acquired adjacent property and are leveling the land.

What concerns neighbors is this: “This vacation is the first step in the proposed O’Brien expansion.” Neighbors are asking, “what expansion?”

Despite this council communication stating that there is a “proposed” expansion, when you ask the City for information about that expansion, they say they’ve received no proposal.

Susan Schlupp in the City’s Economic Development Department says her department has not received any expansion plan from O’Brien Steel. Pat Landes, Director of Planning and Growth, said in response to neighborhood inquiries that her department “does not have any application for rezoning, special use, or zoning certificate on file. At a meeting in September, O’Brien representatives said that when a plan was ready and they were ready to file that they would meet with the neighbors.”

Neighbors are wary of such promises. After all, the last redevelopment agreement with O’Brien Steel (June 2000) was made public on a Wednesday and passed by the City Council the following Tuesday. Neighborhood associations asked the City to defer the item to give them time to meet and give input to the plan, but the Council feared a deferral would scuttle the project.

Incidentally, the last redevelopment project promised to “increase the number of local job opportunities from the existing 150 to over 200 when the project is complete.” But in March 2009, the Journal Star reported that “32 of [O’Brien Steel’s] production workers were laid off indefinitely. Company president J.P. O’Brien said the company employs 120, most of whom are production workers.” It would appear that the promised additional jobs either never materialized or were short-lived. In any case, O’Brien now has significantly fewer employees than before their last expansion.

Despite all the protestations from the City that no proposal has been made, a June 22, 2010, statement from Speer Financial selling City of Peoria general obligation bonds had this to say: “[O’Brien Steel] is currently in negotiations with the City of construct a new manufacturing facility and warehouse that is estimated to cost $15,000,000.”

But the City doesn’t know anything.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Economic Development, Peoria Public Schools

Open discussion on Peoria High and East Village TIF

28 Comments

I have mixed feelings about the recent windfalls of state money Peoria has been told its getting. In the news recently have been announcements that we’re getting $10 million to upgrade Washington Street and $17 million to renovate Peoria High School and build an addition onto Lincoln Middle School.

On the one hand, the money is going for a good cause, and we can certainly use it. On the other hand, the State of Illinois is in a financial crisis, and this additional spending is not helping to alleviate it.

It has led to an interesting question that I didn’t expect to hear while we’re still reeling from the recent recession: what should we do with all the money? Of course, the Warehouse District money is pretty cut and dried. But the District 150 money is another story. I got this comment recently from school board member Jim Stowell:

CJ – can I please ask if you could open the question of how we should best develop PHS and the surrounding feeder system/neighborhoods – what collaborations we should explore, etc. Thx! In light of the recent funding grant, there exists tremendous opportunity. I am optimistic about the East Bluff residential TIF, but I also have reservations. The Dist. will no doubt be convening meetings, but the discussion needs to begin now. Thanks for providing a forum.

I’d kind of sworn off open threads a while back, but this does sound like it would be an interesting discussion. Other readers have expressed interest in this as well. So, always being happy to oblige my readers, here’s an open thread to discuss Peoria High and the proposed East Village TIF.

I’ll just add that while Mr. Stowell may be “optimistic about the East Bluff residential TIF,” that doesn’t appear to be the official opinion of District 150. The District’s interim comptroller Dr. David Kinney has been attending recent City Council meetings, and when I asked him why, he said it was in case an opportunity came to speak about the proposed TIF. He’s not what you’d call a fan of the idea. On its face, he says it’s a recipe for disaster. The preferred outcome is that it would encourage families to move back into the East Bluff. If it’s successful in doing so, it will require more services from District 150 to educate the increasing number of children, but provide no additional tax revenue to support them. Thus, it would put even more of a strain on District 150’s already stretched finances.

The proposed East Village TIF area is currently being studied for eligibility (this is perfunctory, as no proposed TIF has ever been found ineligible), with the consultant’s report scheduled to come before the council November 9.

City of Peoria

Wonderful Development still sitting on launching pad

12 Comments

At the request of come commenters, I’ve been trying to get information on what’s new with the Wonderful Development. As far as I can tell, nothing.

The City Council initially approved (by a 10-1 vote) an agreement in December 2008 with EM Properties to redevelop the Pere Marquette block, upgrading the Pere and building a pedestrian bridge across Fulton St. to the Civic Center. EM Properties couldn’t fulfill that agreement, so they came back in May 2010 requesting a new redevelopment agreement that was significantly different than the first one. The new agreement would have two hotels instead of one (i.e., they would still restore the Pere and make it a four-star Marriott, but would also build a separate Courtyard by Marriott on the block), and fewer rooms overall. They also requested $37 million instead of $39 million in bonds (i.e., taxpayer subsidy). At the time, the City reported on their Council Communication, “EM Properties has made modifications to their project and has now secured all necessary private financing.” The new redevelopment agreement was approved by a 7-4 vote.

The agreement required in section 3.3, “No later than ninety (90) days after the execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper shall submit to the City the Design Concept Plan for the Project which Design Concept Plan shall contain the Exterior Architectural Appearance of the Project.” And in section 3.5, “No later than August 1, 2010, the Redeveloper shall submit to the City Schematic Drawings developed in connection with the design-build contract for the Project.” So, I asked the City, via a Freedom of Information Act request, when these documents were submitted.

Well, I didn’t find out exactly when they were submitted. All I received was a letter dated September 10, 2010, from the City’s Corporation Counsel Randy Ray to EM Properties, Ltd., that said:

This letter will confirm that your booklet entitled “Downtown Peoria Mariott Hotel Project — Hotel Site Plans” containing drawings dated May 3, 2010, satisfies the requirements of Section 3.5 of the Redevelopment Agreement between the City of Peoria and EM Properties, Ltd. concerning schematic drawings.

We would take this oportunity to remind you that in order to get a building permit for the Project, the Inspections Department will need professionally sealed construction documents.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

In a follow-up phone call to Randy Ray, he stated that the booklet also included the Design Concept Plan and thus satisfied section 3.3 of the redevelopment agreement as well. However, section 3.4 of the agreement states, “The City shall within thirty (30) days from receipt approve or disapprove the Design Concept Plan.” And for the purposes of that section, the “City” means the City Council. Mr. Ray confirmed that the design concept plan has never come before the City Council, and said he will try to get it on the Council’s agenda in November. He thanked me for bringing it to his attention.

Meanwhile, you may recall that EM Properties was trying to get moral obligation financing through the Illinois Finance Authority to “finance a portion of the energy efficient upgrades of the 270-room historic Pere Marquette Hotel that will be renovated and converted to a Marriott and a ‘to be’ constructed 180-room Courtyard.” They had a big public hearing on it in March 2010. The last I heard about it was in May when the Journal Star reported, “EM Properties, the developer of the Marriott Hotel project, needs approval from the Illinois Finance Authority. The authority next meets June 8, and it’s unknown whether a request for a moral obligation bond supporting the hotel will be on the agenda.”

Well, it wasn’t on the agenda in June. In fact, it’s never again appeared on an IFA agenda. However, there are some related matters on the IFA slate. In August 2006, the current owners of the hotel, Pere Marquette Hotel Associates, L.P., entered into a participation loan with the IFA and National City Bank (now PNC). That loan should have been paid off March 31, 2010, but because of the pending sale to EM Properties, there was a request to extend the final maturity date until June 30. However, the sale didn’t close by then, so another extension was approved until September 30. The sale had not closed as of September 30 because a third extension was requested at the October 12 IFA meeting:

This is a third request by PNC Bank, and the Borrower, to extend the final maturity date beyond the originally scheduled March 31, 2010, maturity date in anticipation of the sale of the Hotel Pere` Marquette to EM Properties.

This request will provide an additional 120-day window for Pere` Marquette Hotel Associates, L.P. to close on the sale of the hotel property to EM Properties, LLC. Again, PNC and the other lenders expect this purchase to close by November 30, 2010.

Despite the expectation that the sale will close by the end of November, the extension goes through January 31, 2011.

I’m not sure what all this means, but I have to say these delays are awfully strange for a project that supposedly had “secured all necessary private financing” back in May.

Television

WYZZ leaves baseball fans with no signal

15 Comments

WYZZ-TV, channel 43, went off the air tonight during the eighth inning of the National League Championship Series. It could have been the final game, as the Giants led the series three games to one. As it turned out, the Phillies won, sending the series back to Philadelphia. Not that WYZZ viewers could know. All they could see was “No Signal.”

Nothing has been posted even yet on their website explaining the outage or apologizing. If you call the studio for information, forget it — you get sent to someone’s voice mail. I did get a real person in the news room who politely informed me that they were having “technical difficulties” and that “engineers are working on the problem and will get the station back on the air as soon as possible.” It wasn’t soon enough. The game ended with WYZZ still off the air.

I hope they get their “technical difficulties” fixed before the World Series starts.

City of Peoria

Case against Ardis — substantive or political?

74 Comments

There’s no love lost between State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons and Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis. Ardis supported Darin LaHood in the last State’s Attorney election and had some critical things to say about Lyons during the campaign.

Well, now the Journal Star reports that Mayor Ardis “may have committed a misdemeanor and subsequent felony by using what appeared to be official city stationery recently to request campaign donations on behalf of a judicial candidate, State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons said Wednesday.” Ardis stated that “he paid for the copies, envelopes and postage and the city letterhead was from a Word document on his home computer,” and so he thought he was complying with the law by not using city resources for campaign purposes.

Not so, according to the Journal Star. A City ordinance “prohibits city employees from engaging in ‘any prohibited political activity during any compensated time … [City] employees shall not intentionally misappropriate any [City] property or resources by engaging in any prohibited political activity for the benefit of any campaign for elective office or any political organization.'” When the Journal Star told Ardis about this section, he is quoted as saying it “doesn’t pertain to elected officials.”

The ordinance in question is from Section 2-336 of the City’s municipal code, and frankly I can see Ardis’s point. There is no definition that I can find of “city employee.” Assuming there is none, we have to look for clues from the context. Here are the first two items under Section 2-336:

Sec. 2-336. Prohibited political activities.

(a) City employees shall not intentionally perform any prohibited political activity during any compensated time (other than vacation, personal, or compensatory time off). City employees shall not intentionally misappropriate any city property or resources by engaging in any prohibited political activity for the benefit of any campaign for elective office or any political organization.

(b) At no time shall any executive or legislative branch constitutional officer or any official, director, supervisor, or city employee intentionally misappropriate the services of any city employee by requiring that city employee to perform any prohibited political activity (i) as part of that employee’s city duties, (ii) as a condition of city employment, or (iii) during any time off that is compensated by the city (such as vacation, personal, or compensatory time off).

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but neither is Ardis, so let’s just look at this from a layman’s perspective. It would appear to me that there is a difference between “city employee,” “constitutional officer,” “official,” “director,” and “supervisor.” Section 2-266 and 2-267 indicates that Mayor is an “elected city officer.” I can find no reference to the Mayor as a “city employee.” So at best, this section’s application to the Mayor is tenuous.

But that won’t stop Mr. Lyons. He’s rattling his saber, saying that he could charge Ardis with a felony through some other legal hocus-pocus. Unless other evidence can be provided besides what was cited in the Journal Star, I’m not buying that Ardis actually broke the law here. This appears to be a politically-motivated non-event. Note that Ardis is Republican and is supporting a Republican judicial candidate, whereas Lyons is a Democrat.

Given Lyons’ reluctance to prosecute cases he has little chance of winning, I predict this one will not be prosecuted either.

Caterpillar

CAT’s growing presence in China — is it a good thing?

18 Comments

Caterpillar announced Sunday that Cat China and AVIC Liyuan Hydraulics Co. “have signed a joint-venture agreement to establish a company to design and manufacture medium- and heavy-duty hydraulic pumps and motors for the construction equipment industry.” The press release was picked up and reprinted in the Journal Star Monday on the web — it will probably appear in Tuesday’s paper.

This joint venture comes on the heels of Cat’s September 29 announcement that they were building their twelfth factory in China, this one to make mini hydraulic excavators. That announcement was met with some criticism, not so much at Caterpillar per se, but against U.S. trade relations with China. From the American Thinker blog:

Why can’t Caterpillar make a profit exporting mini-excavators to China? The answer is simple: China has a 30% tariff on all excavators. In fact it has a similar high tariff on just about every vehicle…. When President Obama’s economic adviser Larry Summers was Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton, he oversaw China’s entry to the WTO (World Trade Organization), and he let China declare all these vehicles as a “strategic sector” entitled to high protective tariffs….

The Chinese government has long used these tariffs as a lever in order to loot American companies of their technology. First it forces vehicle-making companies to locate their factories in China if they want to sell to the growing Chinese market. Then it forces them to “share” their proprietary technologies with Chinese competitors. Caterpillar already has 11 factories in China. It also has two Chinese competitors – Liugong and Sany – that are producing what one expert describes as “knockoffs” of Caterpillar models, and they are exporting them to the world.

From a similar post (same author) on a different blog, they add, “What we see is American trade pacifism at work. We keep our markets open to Chinese products. They close their markets to American products and then, in return for access, force our companies to build factories in China and give Chinese competitors their proprietary technology.” The upshot is, “If trade were free and balanced, Caterpillar might profitably produce excavators in the United States and sell them in China, but with the Chinese government setting the terms of trade in a way that keeps out made-in-America products, Caterpillar has little choice but to locate its factory in China.”

Well, they have “little choice” if they want to do business in China, that is. It’s easy to see why they would want to do business in China — so obvious I need not recite the reasons here. But is it worth the cost in the long run if they ultimately have to share their research and development with their competition? What happens when they start having to compete with cheaper knock-offs of their products — not just in China, but worldwide? I can’t help but wonder if they’re sacrificing long-term viability for short-term gain.

2010 Election, Chamber of Commerce

Chamber endorsements always a mystery

51 Comments

The Journal Star is wondering why the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce PAC endorsed Jehan Gordon over Jim Montelongo. I suspect it has everything to do with Montelongo’s vote against the Wonderful Development back in May. The Journal Star didn’t mention that the Chamber PAC also endorsed Lynn Pearson for County Board over Karrie Alms, even though Pearson is also a Democrat and no friend to business. Why? Alms is opposed to the current plan for the museum, which the Chamber supports, and Pearson was for it.

It appears to me that the Chamber has a litmus test for candidates. You have to endorse the Chambers’ pet projects or you will not be endorsed by their political action committee. Your philosophy or record on business issues is irrelevant to them.