Leitch banking on short memories for dual fleecing

May 22, 2012 C. J. Summers 24 Comments

According to Monday’s “Word on the Street” column, State Rep. David Leitch wants to “consider financial relief” for investors in the downtown ballpark. In case you don’t remember, the City of Peoria contributed a little over $3.5 million towards this project (mostly in land acquisition), plus a TIF district.

“Leitch said he would like to see some public relief the investors spent on relocating AT&T fiber optic lines, which he believes cost the group more than $1 million,” according to the article. “They [ballpark investors] got stuck with expenses in that project I don’t think were legitimately theirs,” Leitch said.

But wait! According to a December 5, 2001, Journal Star article by Jennifer Davis, “the city has spent $700,000 more than it expected – $1.7 million instead of the $1 million estimated – to move underground Ameritech fiber-optic lines in the stadium’s way.”

So, does Rep. Leitch not know this? Or does he want the taxpayers to pay for this expense twice now?

I can find no record of ballpark investors paying the City back for that $1.7 million. But let’s suppose they did, just for the sake of argument. So what? Why would such a scenario be “unfair”? The City paid $2.2 million for Eagle Cleaners to make way for the stadium, and a total of $3,525,175 in direct city assistance. Talk about someone getting stuck with expenses that weren’t legitimately theirs–what about the taxpayers, Rep. Leitch?

City Council, City of Peoria, Energy Issues

Aggregation opt-out letter a day late and candor short

May 21, 2012 C. J. Summers 5 Comments

On March 20, 2012, in the primary election a majority of citizens voted yes on a referendum question allowing corporate authorities to form a Municipal Opt-Out Electricity Aggregation. City Officials are happy to offer eligible residents and small businesses SAVINGS over Ameren Illinois (“Ameren”) rates by banding together all eligible electric service classes.

So begins the official notice I received Monday about the City’s electric aggregation opt-out program. I have been expecting this notice. But there are a couple of things that I didn’t expect:

Less than 15 days to opt out. To opt out, you are required to return a form “before the deadline date of June 1, 2012.” In the Plan of Operation and Governance document received and filed by the City Council on April 10, it was stated that “there will be an Opt-Out Period of at least 15 days from the postmark date on the notice to postmark the return Opt-Out notice if they do not wish to participate in the Program.” At least 15 days, they said. So, what was the postmark on the letter? May 18. May 18 to June 1 is 14 days. Am I being nit-picky? Try paying your parking fine a day late and see how nit-picky the City is with you.
No fee disclosure. The letter also avers that “you will not be charged a fee for partaking in this program.” However, the April 10 council communication states, “The program will also create a modest income source for the City of Peoria ($0.001/kWh).” Elsewhere, this is called “additional margin available to Peoria.” What is this if not a fee? I’m not necessarily saying this fee can’t be justified, but it is a fee, and should be disclosed as such.

Blogosphere, Peoria Police

There’s a reason you have to have press credentials to see the police blotter

May 17, 2012 C. J. Summers 39 Comments

I read Billy’s recent “free” post about how he was denied access to police reports. His post calls into question the police department’s restriction of this information to only those with press credentials.

I wanted to find out what the police department’s policy actually was, so I e-mailed Chief Settingsgaard. It turns out that, rather than an attempt to keep information away from people, it’s actually an attempt to make information available more quickly. The police reports include private personal information such as social security numbers and home phone numbers that can be (and should be) redacted. But rather than hold up those reports until they can be redacted, the police department makes them available immediately to the press, trusting that they will be responsible and “[maintain] appropriate discretion.”

In order to restrict this information to the media, one has to ask, “who are ‘the media’?” Traditionally, that moniker has belonged to the mainstream media, but these days there are a lot more freelance reporters. With news organizations downsizing, and the ease of starting new niche-print or online publication, there are a lot of journalists out there who don’t have traditional “press credentials.” Settingsgaard realizes this as well.

“Obviously the industry is changing and not all reporters are members of the mainstream media any longer so clearly we need to adapt so that persons like yourself and Bill Dennis are not excluded. In the short term I will ensure that access is opened immediately to Mr. Dennis and others like him whom we are familiar with. Long term I will be taking a close look at how to make the system better and either configure the reports so that anyone can view them or modernize our ‘press’ qualification.”

My thanks to Chief Settingsgaard for his quick response to and resolution of the matter.

And as for Billy: That will be $30, please.

Blogosphere

BlogPeoria goes behind a pay wall

May 14, 2012 C. J. Summers 31 Comments

Billy Dennis is trying something new in the Peoria blogosphere: You won’t be able to read his original content on the BlogPeoria Project (www.blogpeoria.com) unless you subscribe. Subscriptions are relatively cheap at $3 per month. His post explaining the new system is here.

In a nutshell, blogging is one of those things that most people do as a hobby, in addition to having a “real” job. Since Billy recently got laid off his “real” job (the company he worked for recently closed their Peoria offices), he wants to make blogging his full-time gig. That means he’s planning to do more freelance, original reporting and is hoping that his readers will be willing to pay for the content. Between subscriptions and ad revenue, he believes the business venture will work.

He’ll have no dearth of challenges.

First, even though the Peoria Journal Star is supposedly behind a pay wall, it’s a weak one that’s easily defeated, so their content is still, for intents and purposes, available for free online. Plus, all the TV/radio stations that do news post their news stories on line. And there are the other blogs that will remain free. Billy is consistently going to have to come up with content that is not available from these other sources if he’s going to convince people to pay him $3/month.

Second, Billy will have to overcome his own reputation to a certain extent. People know that he’s capable of doing original reporting, but they also know that he puts up scads of worthless posts, such as “eye candy” and one-line posts that just link to a Journal Star article. So he’s not only going to have to provide good, original content, he’s going to have to overcome negative perceptions people may have about the kind of posts they will get if they subscribe.

Thirdly, several people on a local forum (Peoria.com) have complained that they are getting a virus downloaded to their computer from Billy’s website. Billy is going to have to make sure his site is secure from these sorts of threats. Not only does it anger your customers when their computers get infected, it can also land you on a real-time blacklist which will block your site to any of their subscribers.

Lastly, he’s going to have to edit his posts. Hideous misspellings and grammatical errors are fine for a free blog. But if you’re paying for content, you expect it to be professional and polished.

Don’t get me wrong, though. I think Billy’s plan can work. One person can do quite a bit of reporting if they have the time to commit to it. I think Billy could do $3/month’s worth of reporting easily. And if he gets more subscribers, he could pay freelancers to submit more original works and really build up the site. Having content behind a pay wall would allow him to offer syndicated comics and puzzles if he gets enough revenue to pay for it.

There are lots of possibilities, and I wish him the best of luck.идея за подарък

Caterpillar, City of Peoria

Who’s actually paying for the Caterpillar Sky Walk?

May 12, 2012 C. J. Summers 9 Comments

Remember in my last post, how I said Caterpillar had purchased the naming rights for $1 million? Well…

Under the “Purchase” section of the Naming Rights Agreement, one of the conditions that must be met for the deal to go through is this: “Pere Marquette Hotel Associates, L.P., a Kansas limited partnership shall have paid to Caterpillar the amount of One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00).” Pere Marquette Hotel Associates, L.P., is the company that sold the Hotel Pere Marquette to developer Gary Matthews.

So here’s how this works: Peoria gives $29 million to Matthews. Matthews gives $7,384,000 to the Pere owners to purchase the property. Pere owners give $1 million to Cat. Cat gives $1 million back to Matthews for naming rights. That $1 million then must be used (as specified in the naming rights agreement) “to pay for non-qualified rehabilitation expenditures … related to the construction of the project.”

This raises a couple questions. First, was the selling price of the Pere artificially inflated in order to kick back a million dollars to the developer? Did that million really come not from Cat’s pocket, but from the taxpayers? And second, where is that money going? Do “non-qualified rehabilitation expenditures … related to the construction of the project” include the developer’s fee, for instance? Or if it’s reinvested in the project, does it count toward Matthews’ personal equity in the project?

Caterpillar, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

Caterpillar purchases naming rights to Civic Center-hotel connector

May 7, 2012 C. J. Summers 28 Comments

One of the most prominent pieces of the hotel redevelopment will carry a corporate sponsor’s name: the Caterpillar Sky Walk.

Part of the downtown hotel project is the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fulton connecting the renovated Pere Marquette and new Courtyard Marriott to the Peoria Civic Center. Caterpillar, Inc., purchased the naming rights to the bridge for one million dollars.

The naming rights agreement, which is only between the hotel developer and Caterpillar (not the City of Peoria or the Civic Center), allows Caterpillar to “name the Connector, including the right to display appropriate signage on the exterior and interior of the Connector,” but “not includ[ing] any other marketing, advertising, or other rights.” The agreement specifically says that Caterpillar does not have any rights to name the hotel or garage, but it also forbids the developer from granting naming rights to “any person or entity that competes with Caterpillar in any industry that is part [of] the core business of Caterpillar.”

Neither the redevelopment agreement between the City of Peoria and the hotel developer, nor the easement agreement between the Peoria Civic Center, City of Peoria, and the hotel developer, precludes the sale of naming rights. Council members contacted Monday said they were unaware that naming rights had been sold for the connector, or that there were any plans to do so.

The Peoria Chronicle

Monthly Archives: May 2012