Monthly Archives: March 2012

City Council, City of Peoria

Congratulations to the City Council

17 Comments

I just want to congratulate the Peoria City Council on accomplishing something I really thought was impossible. According to the Journal Star, the Council has managed to find a deadline that Gary Matthews was able to meet. This is no small feat. It only took three and a half years, three redevelopment agreements, and five or six deadline extensions, but through persistence, perseverance, and a political will unrivaled by any other effort the council has made, they have succeeded in foisting this folly on the taxpayers.

I sincerely wish they would put this much effort, determination, and tax money toward the things they should be doing: enforcing law and order, maintaining existing infrastructure, and making Peoria a safe and beautiful place to live for those who actually, you know, live here, and pay taxes that increasingly go toward baubles that hang on our deteriorating civic structure.

No doubt, I ask too much.

Uncategorized

Quote of the Day

3 Comments

Crises lead to permanent shifts in the tolerable limits of the true size of government. Crises break down the ideological resistance to Big Government by (1) providing occasions for the improvement of command-and-control mechanisms, which renders them less obnoxious; (2) discrediting the conservative domino theory, with its implications that all civil and political liberties will be lost in a mixed economy; and (3) creating opportunities for many people both within and without the government to do well for themselves and hence to look more favorably on the new order.

—Robert Higgs, “Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government”
City of Peoria

How high, how long before changes are made?

19 Comments

Here are some random thoughts about gas prices and the future of the City of Peoria that I wanted to throw out there for your consideration.

Gas prices are now $4.09 per gallon in Peoria. It’s not a record high, but it’s getting close.

Have the higher gas prices changed how much you drive? Do you consciously try to make fewer trips, or shorter trips in the car? I do. If it hasn’t made any difference to you yet, how high would gas prices need to go–or how long would they have to stay high–to force you to rethink your driving habits? Or to perhaps buy a more fuel-efficient car?

Or what about more drastic actions? How high would gas have to get before you decided to move closer to where you work? Or closer to where you shop for groceries?

In fact, how long before the demand for more efficient, mixed-use, compact neighborhoods rises enough to change residential development patterns in Peoria?

The fact is, the City of Peoria should be thinking about changing their development patterns right now. Well, yesterday, really. As you watch the digital numbers rise at blazing speed at the gas pump these days, have you ever thought about the tremendous cost of high gas prices to the City? All those police cars, fire trucks, city buses, school buses, snow plows, code enforcers, road maintenance vehicles, ambulances, garbage trucks, etc.? You know all those costs get passed on to you in the form of taxes and (ahem) “fees.”

And how about those infrastructure costs? The cost to maintain all the roads and bridges and, where they exist, sidewalks gets higher and higher per capita the bigger be get without growing in population. Yet instead of maintaining the streets we have and seeking to increase density there, we’re instead spending millions (in a combination of state, federal, and local money) to build an extension to Pioneer Parkway and an extension to Orange Prairie Road.

A 50-plus-square-mile sprawling city of 130,000 residents is only sustainable as long as gas is cheap and abundant and the population growth is proportionate to land area growth. It’s a fact that population growth has not kept up with our land growth. Now if gas ceases to be cheap and abundant, our city is really going to be in a world of hurt, as it is almost completely reliant on motor transportation.

The City supposedly has a sustainability commission. They were established in 2008, and a website went up in 2009. Have you ever heard anything about them since then? Has the City Council solicited their input on any of the road projects that have come before them? Has the Planning Commission solicited their opinion on any of the retail or residential developments that have come before them? Has the Planning & Growth Department solicited their opinion on any changes they’ve made recently to the Land Development Code or Zoning ordinance?

My guess is the Sustainability Commission gets about as much respect and consideration as the now-defunct Heart of Peoria Commission did. It’s there for window dressing.

The time is now to start planning for a sustainable city. The built environment doesn’t change overnight. It changes little by little, over many years. Let’s get serious and start planning–and becoming–a sustainable future for our City now.

Peoria Pundit

Stupid things that have come out of Billy Dennis’s blog

16 Comments

If you haven’t noticed, Billy Dennis has been on a crusade against Rush Limbaugh. Lately he’s taken to putting up post after post after post of “stupid” Rush Limbaugh quotes–about one an hour. I thought, just for fun, we’d turn the tables and see if there are any “stupid” Billy Dennis quotes we could find. It just so happens there are a few:

“Yes, you can ask 100 mothers, and 99 percent of them would be APPALLED that a 20-year-old female babysitter bought alcohol for a 14-year-old boy and seduced him. The percentage of 14-year-old boys who feel the same way? Eh, not so much. Anyway, she’s been charged with a crime because mother[s] vote.”

—Billy Dennis, arguing that statutory rape is not so bad for boys, August 4, 2011

“There’s a movement afoot to deny pediatric care to children who’s [sic] parents choose not to immunize them. Good. Failure to immunize is bad for individual kids. If enough children in any one area do not immunize, it can be wildly fatal. So, if you commit an anti-social act of failing to immunize your kids, you should be denied the benefits of society.”

—Billy Dennis, from a post titled “Let Them Die” supporting death and the denial of medical care for children because their parents didn’t immunize them, August 4, 2011

“Putting a committed environmental activist on any landfill committee makes about as much sense as putting members of the Flat Earth Society on a committee that designs spaceships.”

—Billy Dennis, calling environmentalists ignorant and impediments to landfill oversight, December 21, 2009

“Folks, the last thing that District 150 needs is for every chronically truant kid to suddenly start putting in time in school, draining time, energy and resources away from kids who want to learn. …[I]f someone is determined to remain an uneducated serf, let ‘em. Plenty of dropouts means a large pool of cheap labor, so maybe it won’t cost so much to have someone pump my gas or flip burgers at my favorite fast-food restaurant.”

—Billy Dennis, opposing enforcement of truancy laws and encouraging exploitation of the uneducated, July 15, 2004

“I have a suggestion for someone who cannot abide humor based on sex: Stay home. Turn off your television. Hide under your bed. You will be safe there.”

—Billy Dennis, defending sexual harassment by former deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, July 15, 2004

These are all quotes from the man who wants to see another pundit taken off the air for making stupid and insensitive remarks. See, Billy employs mockery and scorn in his writing often because, he says, it’s “fun” and “effective writing” that gets his point across and causes more people to pay attention. But when a radio host does the same thing, Billy is incensed. Ironic, huh?

In looking back over Billy’s posts, I was most struck by all the offensive free speech he’s actually defended over the years. There was Ted Rall’s racist editorial cartoon where he called Condoleeza Rice the n-word. Billy’s response: Ignore him. Then there was shock-jock Howard Stern’s regularly offensive content. Billy’s response: “Leave content alone. No one is being forced to listen to Stern. Radios and televisions have off buttons, people.” There are more examples which all follow the same reasoning. So it’s no small departure for Billy to be doing what he’s doing now: Leading a campaign to boycott Rush’s local advertisers and try to get WMBD-AM to take him off the air because of something stupid Rush said.

It makes one wonder, why now? Why this? What is it about Limbaugh’s offensive content that is so much more egregious than Rall’s or Stern’s (or his own)? Why does he defend keeping all other offensive content on the air and in print but seek to silence Limbaugh? It’s a glaring inconsistency.

My guess is he’s just doing it for hits on his website, which brings in more advertising revenue. And you know what that makes him? Well, I’d better not say…. 😉Художник

Democrat Party, Elections

Woodmancy’s criminal record cannot be easily set aside

10 Comments

I’ve been getting press releases from a Democrat candidate for the 18th Congressional District, Matthew Woodmancy. They invariably include a disclaimer that goes like this:

Matthew Woodmancy has a criminal record for a foolish act and is paying his fines and has moved on with his life. He is ready to serve, ready to listen to his constituency, and ready to support real changes to the government.

The rap sheet on Woodmancy is well known, but for the sake of completeness, here it is again, courtesy of the Peoria Journal Star:

  • Convicted felon, still on probation until 2013
  • Convicted of criminal theft for stealing from a family member and that person’s now-shuttered Bloomington-based business in 2006
  • Sentenced to jail time, probation and $45,000 in fines and restitution
  • Charged with misdemeanor battery and pleaded guilty in 2008
  • Pleaded guilty in 2009 to driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol
  • Has more than a dozen other traffic tickets, including driving on a suspended license
  • His license has been revoked and most of his fines from the traffic tickets have been referred to collections

Woodmancy’s campaign strategy is to be up-front about his criminal past, point out that he has paid and is currently paying his debt to society, and assure us that he’s a changed man and has “moved on with his life,” from which I infer he means we should move on as well and not hold any of his criminal past against him now.

Do you need a National Police Check for Commonwealth employment, working / living in Australia, overseas adoption or travelling overseas? Make sure to check out rapidscreening.com.au Rapid Screening is a trusted organisation authorised to provide national police clearances within Australia.

It’s my contention that his criminal past cannot so easily be set aside, despite his obvious desire to put it behind him. These are not crimes that took place in the distant past. These were just committed within the past three to six years. One of them is a crime for which he’s still doing the time. Indeed, one wonders, were he to win, if he could even go to Washington without breaking his parole.

Woodmancy wants us to see his transparency about his criminal past as a virtue. He’s coming clean and not trying to conceal anything. I would counter, first of all, that calling the above rap sheet “a foolish act” in his press release is not completely honest. It whitewashes the fact that it wasn’t a foolish act, but rather several, some more serious than others, but all indicating a lack of principle, integrity, and self-control. These are not generally the kinds of character qualities most people are looking for in a Congressional candidate. In fairness, he has in other contexts owned up to all his crimes.

That said, publicly acknowledging a matter of public record that you know will come out anyway is not really a virtue. What other option did he have? I suppose he could have tried to convince us he was wrongly convicted, so there is some refreshment in having a convicted felon admit he is, in fact, guilty. Still, when you honestly admit you defrauded someone, the honesty and fraud sort of cancel each other out.

But why can’t we just let bygones be bygones? Woodmancy claims to be a changed man. He’s “turned [his] life around, thanks to the help of friends and family,” he says. So is his criminal past relevant now that he’s paying his debt to society? Can’t people change? How long should we hold these crimes against him?

I would suggest that we wait at least until he’s done serving his time, has paid his fines, and has made full restitution. That would seem to be a reasonable minimum expectation. Even Jehan Gordon (finally) paid her fine for shoplifting before she was elected.

Woodmancy’s friend Fred Smith points out in a recent blog post, “Our system of justice says that once someone has paid their debt to society, the slate is wiped clean unless they continue to screw up.” True enough, but Woodmancy is still doing the time. His parole isn’t up until next year. So there’s no “clean slate” yet, even by Smith’s standards.

Beyond that, it would be nice to see a few years go by without any additions to his rap sheet. The only sure way to know if a person has changed is to see proof of that change over time. I want to believe that Woodmancy really has changed, as he claims. But recidivism rates are high in Illinois—over 51% of parolees commit another crime or violate the rules of their supervision within three years according to a 2011 Pew Research study. So putting a little more time between the crime and a run for office would likely inspire greater confidence in voters.

I believe people can change. I don’t think we should hold past convictions against people forever. I understand why Mr. Woodmancy would want to put these crimes behind him as quickly as possible. But when you commit a crime, you break trust not only with the victim, but with society, and you can’t rebuild that trust overnight. I applaud Woodmancy for wanting to serve in public office, but he really needs to spend more time rebuilding his trustworthiness in the community first.

City Council, City of Peoria

The latest line drawn by the City

5 Comments

The Journal Star recently published the following quote regarding the Wonderful Development:

“The developer doesn’t need a reminder from the council of the hard deadline in place,” Mayor Jim Ardis said. “He knows he has to deal with any obstacles and put us in a position to close by the end of the month. That won’t change.”

Did you see that? This latest deadline is different than all the previous deadlines. This one is a hard deadline. We really mean business this time! No more of those phony deadlines of the past three and a half years! This is a hard deadline. Do you hear me, Mr. Matthews? HARD!

It is to laugh. Does anyone really believe this? It’s like that old Bugs Bunny cartoon: