All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
State of Illinois

House committee: Impeach Blagojevich (UPDATED)

3 Comments

UPDATE: The full house voted 114-1 on Friday morning to impeach Rod Blagojevich. The Senate will hold the trial.

The House Committee on Impeachment unanimously recommended that Rod Blagojevich be impeached. Their recommendation now moves to the full House, where lawmakers are expected to vote tomorrow. If it passes (or should I say, when it passes), the Senate will then hold an impeachment trial.

Here’s the Committee’s report. Here’s the summary:

In sum, the Committee heard a great volume of evidence relating to the Governor’s abuse of power. The Committee received a criminal complaint and affidavit whose weight comes primarily from the Governor’s own words, when he was unaware that the government was listening. Those recordings captured the Governor overseeing and directing plans to negotiate a personal benefit for his appointment of a u.S. Senator; conditioning the provision of State financial assistance to the Tribune Company on the firing of members of the Chicago Tribune editorial board; and engaging in a number of instances of tying official actions to campaign contributions. The Committee saw further evidence of the Governor linking campaign contributions to official actions with the sworn federal court testimony of Ali Ata and Joseph Cari, testimony which helped lead to the conviction of one of the Governor’s top fundraisers, Antoin Rezko. The Committee heard evidence that the Governor defied JCAR and expanded a health care plan without legal authority or a funding source. And the Committee heard a number of abuses exposed by Auditor General Holland in his audits of the flu vaccine program, the I-SaveRx program, and the efficiency initiative.

In response to all of this evidence, the Governor chose to remain silent and absent from the proceedings. His counsel offered a Transition Report from the President-Elect’s attorney on the subject of the Senate seat and a videotape of a press conference by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. Beyond that, the Governor’s counsel named four individuals that, he predicted, would testify that they were not approached by anyone from the Governor’s staff for any wrongful purpose related to the Senate seat and, in one case, related to the Tribune Company issue. It is fair to note, however, that at the time the Governor’s counsel made the proffer of the four witnesses (December 23, 2008), the U.S. Attorney had already requested that the Committee refrain from inquiring into the subject matters of the Senate seat and the Tribune Company (December 22,2008). The Governor’s counsel knew, at the time he made the request, that it would not be granted.

In sum, the Committee has heard a great deal of evidence relating to various instances where the Governor’s inappropriate actions constitute abuse of power. The Governor’s counsel, in response, has provided the Committee only a small amount of information that does not even address the majority of the claims raised in this proceeding.

My favorite part is where he paid someone who didn’t know sign language to be an interpreter for the deaf.

Education, Nation/World, Peoria Public Schools

Michelle Rhee: Blueprint for urban schools?

55 Comments

I heard a story on NPR the other day about the chancellor of the Washington (D.C.) public schools, Michelle Rhee. She has a plan for improving the struggling urban school district:

She has proposed a new contract for the union that would undermine tenure, the teachers union holy of holies. The carrot is money. By tapping Mayor Fenty and private philanthropists, she is hoping to make D.C. teachers the best-paid in the country. Current teachers would actually have a choice. If they are willing to go on “probation” for a year—giving up their job security—and can successfully prove their talent, they can earn more than $100,000 a year and as much as $130,000, a huge salary for a teacher, after five years. If not, they still get a generous 28 percent raise over five years and keep their tenure. (All new teachers must sign up for the first option and go on probation for four years.) Rhee predicts that about half the teachers will choose to take their chances on accountability for higher pay, and that within five years the rest will follow, giving up tenure for the shot at merit pay hikes.

Of course, the goal of this is not only to reward successful teachers, but to get rid of “incompetent teachers,” as Rhee puts it elsewhere. The teachers union says, “You can’t fire your way into a successful school system.” Rhee counters that tenure does nothing to improve student achievement and only makes it harder to terminate poor teachers, which is bad for the children. The union questions Rhee’s ability to judge who is or is not a good or competent teacher. And back and forth it goes.

Rhee has a bargaining chip: charter schools.

About a third of D.C. parents now opt to send their kids to charter schools, which are public schools—but where the teachers are non-union. The union has lost more than a thousand of its more than 5,000 teaching slots during the past decade. Rhee, it appears to many, is not interested in protecting turf. If she can open more charter schools that are better than the regular city schools, she seems willing to let the old system wither away.

In either event, if Rhee gets her way, many are saying that it will have a ripple effect through the nation, with many other urban school districts trying to follow in Rhee’s footsteps.

District 150 is starting to look into charter schools, and on an unrelated note they’re looking for creative ways to save money. For the new math and science academy, they’re even looking to partner with Bradley University; such an arrangement “could help the university develop and train better teachers, as well as provide a better educational opportunity within District 150.” No word yet on what relationship charter school teachers would have to the union.

So, should District 150 follow Rhee’s plan for improving urban schools? Or, to put it another way, should Peoria’s public schools make tenure-busting and/or union-busting part of their strategy?

The Peoria Chronicle

Resolution

27 Comments

I’ve been on the precipice of giving up blogging completely, but in the end I’ve resolved to greatly reduce, but not eliminate, my little hobby. That will no doubt be a disappointment to some and wonderful news to others.

In the past, I’ve tried for the most part to put up at least one post every day — to be a daily blog, as it were. I’m no longer going to pursue that. Instead, I’ll write only when I have the time and the desire to say something, and let the blog lie dormant otherwise. This means I won’t be posting press releases or “breaking news” or that type of thing anymore.

I hope you’ll continue to stop by and see what I have to say, even if my posts are more infrequent. I very much enjoy reading the discussions that take place here in the comments section, and I hope you do as well.

Museum Block, Peoria County

Sales tax referendum discussed at county finance committee meeting

20 Comments

I couldn’t attend the Peoria County finance committee meeting Tuesday, but activist and regular commenter Karrie Alms did and provides this scoop:

Today’s Peoria County Finance Meeting was a real treat of new information.

  1. Peoria County feels that they will need to get the City of Peoria to title the museum property to them so that the County will be able to legally issue revenue bonds for the museum project. So, the County is in the process of carrying that water to the city.

  2. Roughly $35M will be needed for the museum project. Roughly — not a firm figure. Is that an increase, decrease or the same amount from the last figure on record? Wonder when that figure will be firmed up?

  3. That the resolution (the referendum language) will refer to a “public facility” not the museum specifically.

    I asked that as a voter in the voting booth, how would I know that the money would be specifically used for the museum? I wouldn’t know and that the museum people will have to make their appeal to let the voter know that the money is for the museum. Special, seeing that PA 95-1002 (born as SB 1290) refers to public facilities. I guess we will just vote to pass another tax for the County to start a fund for whatever suits them.

  4. And my favorite, that once the county has repaid the bonds, that the county could just give the land away to anyone — the city, the museum group or whomever. This concept was repeated at least twice.

After the bonds are paid off, Karrie told me, the County would then transfer title to the property back to the City or possibly the museum directly. I believe it was said in the meeting that it didn’t matter which entity got the property.

It’s interesting to me that they’re planning to use revenue bonds. What revenue will this project be producing exactly? Just a couple weeks ago, the city decided against using revenue bonds to pay for the new Marriott hotel downtown, opting for general obligation bonds because there was no established revenue stream. Now the county will be using revenue bonds for a project that will most likely need a perpetual operating subsidy? Where’s my municipal bond expert commenter? I need some more explanation on this one.

In answer to Karrie’s second question, the number was $24 million in November 2007 when it was first pitched to the county. By November 2008, the number reported was $35 million, evidently due to increased construction costs.

As for the referendum language, it is certainly vague if they’re indeed going to ask for a tax to go for a “public facility” without specifying said facility. They could use that money for anything, including other facilities besides the museum if the tax raised a surplus of money.

One other interesting note that Karrie didn’t mention: the results of the online survey were quite a bit more negative than the phone survey. On all the questions, a rather large majority was opposed to a sales tax increase regardless of the reason.

State of Illinois

Blagojevich appoints Burris

Leave a comment

From the state that gave you “the audacity of hope” now comes the audacity of Blagojevich. The Chicago Tribune reports:

In a display of political bravado, disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich today appointed former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate, challenging national Democratic leaders to reject the appointment of an African-American to the seat that propelled Barack Obama to the White House.

What’s really funny is Bobby Rush. “Democratic U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago […] underscored the role of race in the governor’s decision by using racially charged terms to defend the appointment.” Yet it’s Secretary of State Jesse White (a black man) who won’t certify the appointment, and President-elect Barack Obama (a black man) who is also repudiating the appointment. I suppose Rush would have us believe they’re racist, too.

Obama explained the situation perfectly in his statement:

“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy.”

Uncategorized

Open Soapbox Tuesday

35 Comments

What would you like to talk about today? General Parker running for mayor? District 150 borrowing $16 million to meet their payroll? Making wagers on how soon Governor Blagojevich will be impeached? Thoughts on the Israel-Hamas war, now in its fourth day? Or something else entirely?

This is the place to talk about it. It’s Open Thread Tuesday!

Peoria Public Schools

Schifeling being challenged for PFT president’s spot

29 Comments

Jeff Adkins-Dutro, a Peoria High School Teacher, and Hedy Elliott, a Garfield primary school teacher and daughter of popular radio personality Royce Elliott have recently launched a campaign for President and Vice-President respectively of the Peoria Federation of Teachers (PFT) Union. Dutro and Elliott are challenging current PFT President Scott Schifeling.

See the full story on Peoria Pundit.

New Urbanism, Peak Oil

Another reason for good urban design: Peak Oil

35 Comments

Here’s a thought-provoking documentary from 2004 called “The End of Suburbia.” It’s basically about how much energy suburban lifestyles consume, and how that lifestyle will be threatened by peak oil. In light of the challenges peak oil presents, a return to good urban design (traditional town planning, New Urbanism, whatever you want to call it) will be a way that we can consume less energy.

Here’s the thing: I don’t see why we should have to wait for some apocalyptic scenario to scare us or force us into efficient use of our natural resources. We should be doing that anyway as good stewards of the earth. But I guess I’m being a bit too idealistic.

This video is about 52 minutes long:

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, HOPC, New Urbanism

LDC misunderstood by developers

6 Comments

Attorney Bob Hall thinks the Land Development Code “certainly has a lot of bugs,” according to today’s Journal Star. But it doesn’t really. It just has a lot of things he or the developer he represents either doesn’t like or doesn’t understand, which is typical regardless of what zoning regulations are in place.

Still, some comments made by Mr. Hall deserve a response.

Hall said the reason [council deferred approving a variance for 741 W. Main] was because other requirements within the code were preventing the redevelopment from occurring.

One of those requirements focuses on the size of awnings required along Main Street. Hall said the zoning requirements maintain that an awning six-feet horizontally would have to go up.

“It would probably stretch out into Main Street,” he said.

Not quite. I went out today and measured. From the front of the building to the curb, it’s seven feet. A six-foot awning would do exactly what it’s supposed to do — cover the sidewalk to within a foot of the street. Awnings have a purpose, and it’s not to be merely decorative. They provide shade and shelter for pedestrians and patrons, as well as additional signage for the business. They’re also not required; the code simply says when you have them, they have to be a certain size. In any event, there’s nothing about the awning requirement that should be “preventing the redevelopment from occurring,” other than the developer just not liking it.

Also, Hall said there is no requirement for a street wall or any decorative fencing at newer developments at nearby properties, such as the Peoria NEXT Innovation Center.

“Newer” developments to be sure, but approved before approval of the Land Development Code took effect. Had the LDC been in place when those projects were approved, they would have had to follow the same guidelines.

But [Hall] said he has other clients wanting to redevelop in the city’s older neighborhoods and that the code’s detailed specifics are causing problems. For instance, Hall said Knoxville Avenue – where one of the developments is to occur – “should not have been included” as part of the land development code, which highlights the principles of New Urbanism to make older neighborhoods more pedestrian friendly.

“Knoxville is a thoroughfare,” Hall said. “New Urbanism is for neighborhood stuff.”

These statements illustrate the need for education, something the Heart of Peoria Commission was working on when it was unceremoniously disbanded. New Urbanism is not just about making older parts of town more walkable, nor is it restricted only to neighborhoods. The principles of New Urbanism were only applied to the older parts of Peoria because those were the bounds set by the city council for the Heart of Peoria Plan project. New Urbanism is a comprehensive philosophy of town planning that covers private and public space, commercial and residential areas, streets and thoroughfares. In fact, all these things have to work in concert with each other to create great places; it’s the dis-integration of these things that has caused many of our urban (and suburban) problems.

The Land Development Code is going to get challenges like this until developers understand the purpose behind it, adapt to it, and hopefully embrace it. It’s incumbent upon the Planning and Growth Department to provide this education and to defend the code — within reason, of course.

And here, I should mention that I’m not saying the code cannot ever be questioned. But challenges to the code must be made in context with the intent of the code. The street wall requirement, for example, was worth taking under consideration. There was some disagreement over where that requirement in the code came from — Ferrell-Madden claimed it was the architectural review committee that insisted on it, but one of the members of that committee claims it was Ferrell-Madden’s decision to include it. Ultimately, the ad hoc group that is reviewing the form-based code portion of the LDC, with input from Ferrell-Madden, decided to modify this provision, but only because such revisions could be done while still fulfilling the code’s intent.