–January 18, 2005, at a news conference laying out his platform during his first mayoral election campaign.
“Everyone on the council has received briefings on this project for months as we’ve progressed down this line. This isn’t something that just hit our desks last week.”
–December 15, 2008, at a City Council meeting, explaining why we needn’t be worried about the council spending $40 million of our tax money on a private hotel a mere 72 hours after the project was officially revealed to the public. No opportunity for public input was provided, despite the project having been in the works behind closed doors “for months.”
Here’s one more quote — this one is from the September 20, 2004, “Word on the Street” column by Jennifer Davis:
“It frightens me that asking public officials to get input from the people who put us here frightens you,” at-large Councilman Jim Ardis in response to Civic Center Authority Board member Jane Converse at Tuesday’s council meeting.
Rumor is there is definite fear among Civic Center board members about public hearings on the proposed $55 million redevelopment of the Civic Center, especially letting the public weigh in on continued commitment of hotel, restaurant and amusement taxes as a revenue stream.
Mayor Ardis, you once felt like I and many of your constituents feel now. Excluded. Marginalized. Left out of the process in the spending of our tax dollars. You once fought for the kind of transparency I and many of your constituents want now — the opportunity to voice our concerns and be listened to. You promised us a “new generation of leadership” in 2005, but I’m still seeing closed-door, top-down leadership.
Ask yourself how the 2005 Ardis would have felt about the way the 2008 Ardis handled the hotel deal. How would you have felt if the mayor then would have told the public, like you did on November 10 at a City Council meeting, that “no development plans have been presented to City Hall” when the mayor had actually been discussing development plans “for months”? How would the 2005 Ardis have felt about public officials leaving the public entirely out of the process of spending $40 million of their money?
I like you, Mayor Ardis. I think you’ve done a lot of good things for the city. I even think the hotel deal has a lot of good points, frankly. But Dave Ransburg had a lot of good ideas, too. He couldn’t sell a lot of them because he lost the confidence of the people by going down the dead-end road of secrecy and exclusion. You ran against him because of it. Please don’t follow him down that road. Have faith in your constituents. If you think they made a smart choice in electing you, consider them intelligent enough to be included in public discourse.
Show us the 2005 Ardis again. You know — the one we elected.
Ask and ye shall receive. Thank you, CJ, for dumbing it down so that my ignorant non-college professor mind can understand.
So if we bring your eloquent explanation back to the subject at hand, the Marriott/Pere project… for what reasons would you suggest that it does not fit in to the concept of new urbanism?
The subject at hand is actually the process by which this project was put forward; i.e., a process of secrecy and exclusion.
However, I’ll be happy to discuss the particular project itself, since we’ve kind of gotten off-topic anyway.
There is actually quite a bit to commend about the project from a New Urbanism standpoint. For the most part, the building comes right up to the sidewalk. The parking is put above retail/restaurant space on the Fulton Street side. The retail/restaurant space will activate the street — it even includes the ability to have sidewalk cafes. There are provisions in the development agreement to use the Pere’s historical status as an asset (which is ironic, given the council’s recent disdain for our historic preservation ordinance; but I digress) by using historic tax credits to help restore the old structure. They’ve agreed to preserve the historical nature of the Pere.
I actually like a lot of things about the project; what I objected to was the way this was kept from the public, then rushed through without any public input at the last meeting. That was a crummy way to do the public’s business. Chris Setti actually answered a lot of my questions during his presentation. Too bad the city couldn’t have shared that information in a more timely fashion so as to give people time to buy into the project.
I think I’ve already explained the things I don’t like about the project — the sky-bridge is unnecessary and inconsistent with New Urbanist principles. Everyone likes to say the sky-bridge is there solely for the convenience of the guests. But the truth is that there is a lot of benefit to the hotel and the Civic Center to having that sky-bridge: sales. By keeping people indoors, it makes it more likely that guests will patronize the restaurants and food vendors in the hotel and Civic Center. It keeps people from wandering outdoors where they might go to a bar in the Twin Towers or even those new restaurants on Fulton that will be just below the sky-bridge, but inaccessible from it. This keeps people off the street, which works against the efforts to activate it with retail and restaurants.
The wide curb cuts and large setback in the front of the new part of the hotel are problematic for pedestrians as well. The context clues tell you that this corner is for automobiles, not pedestrians. If you were to be walking along there, you get the distinct impression that that’s not where you are supposed to be. In an urban setting like this, it should accommodate cars, but be scaled for the pedestrian, so someone walking by the hotel doesn’t feel unsafe. This entrance is designed totally for motor vehicles.
The subject at hand is actually the process by which this project was put forward; i.e., a process of secrecy and exclusion.
Interesting commentary, CJ. I’m beginning to see the light. It takes me a while as I am not a college teacher.
Re: the quote I highlighted above, you have to realize that the private commercial development aspect of this project most assuredly required a degree of confidentiality. Nothing will kill a deal faster than loose lips.
Once private negotiations become public, other investors come out of the woodwork and you can watch the price of the real estate skyrocket. I am certain that was a serious concern in regard to this project. That is precisely what happened during the land acquisition phase of the O’Brien Field project. The city did not want that to happen again.
Finally, let me say this. If Chris Setti is involved, taxpayer investment is as safe as it can possibly be. Chris Setti is a genius, overlooks nothing, and there is no doubt he has studied all relevant facts upside down and inside out. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who knows him and has worked with him that would disagree.
Diane — Yes, it is reasonable for things to stay out of the public eye while the properties are being assembled and pricing gets locked in, as the mayor pointed out. Nothing wrong with that. However, it became unofficially public at the beginning of November. Presumably the pricing was locked in by that point or else (1) the investors wouldn’t be leaking information about the project, (2) they wouldn’t have tipped their hand with the liquor license request for Big Al’s and the ordinance change, etc.
At some point, if a mayor and council are serious about having an open, inclusive, bottom-up leadership style, then the project needs to go before the public for their input. That step was never taken with this project. It was hashed out in secret. Secret deals were made to move Big Al’s — something that had to go before the Liquor Commission for public review, yet the pertinent information was not available to the commission or the public to make an informed decision; hence, no decision from the commission, but the council passed it anyway. Like I said, this is not the way to do the public’s business.
And I too have nothing but admiration for Chris Setti. But here’s the thing — Chris does his homework and is secure enough in his research that he can withstand public scrutiny. Even though he and I (or whomever) may disagree at the end of the day, he nevertheless has a solid case for his position. He wouldn’t be afraid to bring this project before the public to be vetted before a vote was taken.
So pardon me if this sounds like a silly question, CJ, but if you were sitting on the city council and had to vote “yes” or “no” on the hotel project last Monday, what would your vote have been?
Not silly at all, Diane. I’ve asked myself the same thing. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to answer because everything is so hypothetical and out of context.
If I were on the council, I would hope that I would have had some influence in the process early on so that it could have gotten a public hearing before it came to that vote on Monday.
If, however, everything beforehand had turned out the same way, then I would have made a motion for a deferral to give the public a chance to speak on the issue.
If the deferral would have been defeated, I probably would have voted “no” in protest because the council was unwilling to hear the public on it.
Bentone,
As you explain your view in more detail, I understand your point. Do you think people who live in the Heart of Peoria area really prefer conditions as they are? Could it be they think achieving a different outcome is impossible, unrealistic etc? Do you think they feel working towards or expecting a different result is pointless, so why bother?
I ask this because Harvard Business School has a theory about change with a mathematical formula to show that change will not occur if there is zero dissatisfaction. The theory goes that even with the greatest model and plan for implementation without sufficient dissatisfaction you get no change.
Here is the formula Change = D x M x P
Change is a function of (D) dissatisfaction with the status quo, (M) a clear,
accepted model for the future, and (P) a well-designed plan of implementation.
All along I have accepted the Renaissance Park Plan and the Heart of Peoria Plan as accepted models for the future. The experts who visited the city over the last six years certainly helped lay the foundation for implementation. Do we have enough dissatisfaction with the status quo to get the change we need? You say the people living in the Heart of Peoria area are satisfied and the ones that aren’t have already moved away. I view it differently especially as I talk with 20-30 year olds. They are not satisfied. Their hopes and desires are enough to keep me pushing.
At our last Heart of Peoria Commission meeting Pat Landes, Director of Planning and Growth for the City of Peoria acknowledged there has been some change of attitude in city hall and she credited the Heart of Peoria Commission. While I have never turned a ship at sea I realize it is a slow process. I am just not sure we have all the time in the world to wait.
This may be hard to imagine or believe, but since the Heart of Peoria Plan was first introduced we have seen an unprecedented amount of building either completed or in the planning stages to the Heart of Peoria Plan area. It is staggering when you list the projects and see that they represent over 2.5 BILLION dollars of both private and public funding. Yes you read it correctly over 2.5 BILLION and I am not talking about the growth in the northern edges of Peoria. This figure also excludes residential development.
Since 2002 Peorians have missed a major opportunity to advance the ideas of the plan because HOPC did not have an opportunity to influence design decisions early in the conception stages of these projects. Even though I was never a proponent of HOPC having regulatory status I felt we needed to get information into the hands of developers or project managers before too much time and money was invested. The Heart of Peoria Commission was put in the unenviable position of being asked to make comments after drawings were completed. Making changes to plans at that point is often difficult and expensive. Not exactly the way to win friends- let’s just say people in high places wanted to see the Heart of Peoria Commission die a quiet death and we did on Monday December 15,2008.
The solution to this problem is in the plan where it suggests the establishment of a Town Architect who would offer guidance and act as a sounding board when projects are brought forward. The Town Architect would enter into the conversation during the very early meetings and this way Peoria would have a trained and objective advocate for these principles. They would not take work away from local architects and they would not become a design czar as some have suggested.
I can use two recently completed projects representing close to 100 million dollars as examples of how the current process fails to yield the results we need. Without revealing the identities of the buildings I can say they are both considered high quality and well constructed. I have met the architects who designed and guided these projects. I officially sat with one and the project managers as a representative of the Heart of Peoria Commission at a meeting to look at the design. At the time of these conversations both designs were finished, the construction documents were completed, and the projects were already out for bid.
As we talked I got the sense that they would have preferred to get this information about the Heart of Peoria Plan months, if not years, sooner. They really knew very little if anything about the plan. If they had had a chance to learn more about it they most likely would have known the benefits of massing their buildings on the corner rather than mid block. They would have been able to weigh the benefits of orienting their entrances towards the street and not the parking lot. They may have positioned the windows so that there was an opportunity for people to see into the building and for those in the building to watch the street. I left those conversations feeling the architects would have gladly tried.
Today the two buildings I mentioned sit mid block, their parking lots are front and center and the windows are either virtual or too far from the street to give those who may walk past the comfort of natural surveillance. They could have turned out differently. It is not too late to produce the change we need because buildings will continue to be planned and constructed. Streets, sidewalks, and street trees will continue to be installed. It is up to all of us to voice our dissatisfaction with the status quo. Please make a phone call or two- unless of course you really are satisfied.
If the deferral would have been defeated, I probably would have voted “no” in protest because the council was unwilling to hear the public on it.
CJ, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say had that been the case, you would have been very unpopular with your constituency. I had an opportunity to talk about this project with several council people (from a purely social standpoint) and each of them reported that they had received nothing but enthusiastic and positive support from the community.
I can’t answer why they did not have a public hearing before voting. But I do wonder if you picked up the phone and discussed your concerns with anyone on the council other than Gary Sandberg…
Beth… well written and very informative. Thank you. One thing we talk about in Sociology that goes along with change is the an expectation of possibility for change. Revolutions, for example, don’t occur when conditions are at their worst. Social change is only possible when there is hope, that is, when things seem like they are getting better and there is a potential for things to get even better still.
Diane…Your faith in those in power is inspiring.
“I had an opportunity to talk about this project with several council people (from a purely social standpoint) and each of them reported that they had received nothing but enthusiastic and positive support from the community.”
Perhaps your social relationships are interfering with your political perspective.
AND does Eileen know about your infatuation with Chris?
I just love the old “I’ve-got-a-degree” crutch. It adds nothing to a debate so it must be a self-assurance mechanism.
Diane — The mayor consistently maintained that there were “no plans to look at” and that I and other concerned parties were “conspiracy theorists.” He also said the developer would show the project to the Heart of Peoria Commission when there was something to show us (this was before there was talk of disbanding). That didn’t happen. The project was made public on Friday and approved by the council on Monday. Is it too much to ask for a little transparency in government? Why are you defending secrecy and exclusion?
nontimendum… you are right. Education is a crutch.
It is much better to be ignorant and obedient.
I’m not, CJ…just simply offering an alternative point of view.