All posts by C. J. Summers

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

More historic landmark applications a good thing… mostly

According to this week’s “Issues Update” from the City, historic landmark applications in Peoria are up.

“In the past two years, 2007 and 2006,” the report states, “a total of two landmark applications were filed for Irving School and Glen Oak Park.” In 2008, however, there have been four: Amvets Post #64 (237 NE Monroe), Hamilton Boulevard, 401 NE Monroe, and Family House Peoria (1509 N. Knoxville).

For those of you who can’t picture these buildings, here they are — respectively, the Amvets building, Family House, and 401 NE Monroe:

Generally, I see this as a good thing. Too much of Peoria’s history has already been razed. What’s left really should be preserved — presuming, of course, that it meets reasonable standards for preservation. Most of these properties do.

The one exception would be Hamilton Boulevard. This is on the council’s agenda for Tuesday night. What they are actually proposing be given landmark status is “the built median component of the right-of-way, located within Hamilton Boulevard, from Monroe Street to Glendale Avenue, and Randolph Avenue to North Street.” To which I ask, The median? Really?

The justification for this appears to be the fact that the street was laid out by William S. Hamilton, son of Alexander Hamilton (you remember Alexander Hamilton — the guy on the $10 bill, first Secretary of the Treasury, died after famous duel with Aaron Burr). Okay, sure, William Hamilton is a prominent historical figure in Peoria. But he also laid out Water, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Liberty, Main, and Fayette. Should we also landmark all of those streets?

Besides, they kind of undercut their whole preservation argument when they removed the portion of Hamilton that is slated to be changed for the Methodist Hospital expansion. Les Kenyon of the Central Illinois Landmark Foundation (CILF) is quoted in the Historic Preservation minutes as saying:

…they [CILF] are satisfied that Methodist Hospital will provide a beautiful environment for patients, medical staff and visitors as they travel on the Hamilton corridor. He went on to say that for this reason, they have amended their original position with regard to Methodist Hospital’s plans and withdraw any objection to the Methodist Plan regarding landmarking Hamilton Boulevard through the Methodist campus and want to remove the Methodist campus from their landmark request.

But Methodist Hospital is removing the built median that CILF wants to see landmarked on the rest of the boulevard. So, is it historic or not? And Methodist is narrowing Hamilton where it passes their institutional zone. So, is the width of the street worth preserving or isn’t it? If Methodist’s plans for Hamilton don’t destroy the historic nature of the boulevard, then nothing does, and thus it needn’t be landmarked.

But don’t get me wrong. Even though I question this one landmark request, overall I think preserving Peoria’s built history is important. I was recently reading some newspaper clippings about the razing of the Rialto Theater to make way for the Civic Center, and it made me sad. It was one of Peoria’s original vaudeville houses. Originally called the Hippodrome, it housed many famous acts, as did the Palace Theater which was also razed about the same time. Whereas other cities, like Chicago, preserve their historic theaters, Peoria tore theirs down and felt the Civic Center theater was an adequate replacement. What a shame.

I’ve often joked (morbidly) that any history museum in Peoria should include an interactive exhibit where visitors can sit in a little crane and swing a wrecking ball into models of Peoria’s historical landmarks. It would be an object lesson in how little we value our history.

Updated budget information now online

Want to know what’s happening with the City’s budget? You’re in luck (the following is from a press release):

The City’s budget website – www.peoriabudget.com – has been updated to include the entire preliminary budget documents. The Mayor and City Council charged staff with creating a budget process that was more transparent, more open to public involvement and built more alignment with Council goals and priorities. For the first time in the City’s history, the preliminary is available for download by citizens, businesses and other interested parties.

The updated website includes the following information:

  • Budget message (the transmittal the accompanies the presentation of the preliminary budget)
  • Overview Presentation to Council (given 10/7 by Henry Holling)
  • Revenue Presentation to Council (given 10/7 by Jim Scroggins)
  • Budget tables for the operating, debt service and Community Investment Plan portions of the budget
  • Budget calendar

In addition, the entire preliminary budget packet for each department has been placed on-line. This is normally a document of over 400 pages, but has been broken into individual files by department.

The Peoria City Council is committed to gathering citizen input on the upcoming budget. In addition to the recently released “Report on Citizen Budget Input” (also available on the website), citizens are invited to address Council at any budget meeting. Upcoming meetings include:

  • October14—Regular Council Meeting (City Hall, 6:15 pm): Community Investment Plan (CIP) budget
  • October 21—Special Council Meeting (City Hall, 5 6:15 pm): CIP budget, operating budget
  • October 28—Regular Council Meeting (City Hall, 6:15 pm): Operating budget

What’s your sign?

Whatever it is, if it was placed in the public right-of-way, chances are it’s now at the City’s Public Works facility:

City crews have picked up a total of 69 signs that were placed in the public right of way. The signs are being stored at the City’s Public Works facility on Dries Lane. Signs can be retrieved from Public Works over the next 10 days. After that time, the signs will be discarded.

Pride is picking up in Peoria.

Peoria Promise Foundation hires executive director

From a press release:

PEORIA PROMISE FOUNDATION HIRES NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Peoria Promise Foundation is pleased to announce the selection of Tara Gerstner as the organization’s first Executive Director effective October 1st.

Tara brings a strong marketing and leadership background in both corporate and nonprofit management to this position. She has led the revitalization of established programs and has experience in the creation and implementation of both marketing and development programs. She has a number of honors from past assignments and is consistently recognized for her intelligence, passion, and energy.

Tara is a native of Chester, IL and comes to Peoria with her husband, Dr. Greg Gerstner, and their two young children. She graduated from Illinois Wesleyan University in 2001 and obtained an MBA in marketing from University of Texas at San Antonio in 2004.

“We are very excited and fortunate to have Tara as our new Executive Director. She will significantly increase awareness about Peoria Promise in the community and increase the much needed community investment and support we need to grow and be successful”, says Mayor Jim Ardis, President of the Peoria Promise Foundation Board of Directors.

Ken Zika, Treasurer of the Peoria Promise Foundation Board of Directors, states, “The hiring of Tara demonstrates the Peoria Promise Foundation’s commitment to the future opportunities of this remarkable program which provides stimulating economic growth potential to Peoria and its residents.”

For more information on the Peoria Promise Foundation please visit www.peoriapromise.com.

1 out of 4 City employees don’t live in the City

Tucked away in the agenda for next week’s City Council meeting is a report on city employee residency. Overall, 73% (580 out of 795) of the city’s permanent, full-time staff lives inside the city, which means that over a quarter of the staff chooses not to live in the city.

The report breaks the data down by department. Several departments have all their employees living in the city: Council, City Clerk, City Manager, EEO, Legal, HR, Treasurer, Economic Development, and Workforce, and there are many employees in here or independent contractors so the use of an online 1099-misc maker can be helpful to manage the payments of these workers.

The lowest percentage of City residents comes from the police department. Statistics from Labor Law Compliance websites say only 58% (168 out of 288) of police officers live within the City limits. Second lowest is “ECC,” which I assume is the Emergency Communications Center: 65% (24 out of 37). And third lowest is the fire department: 77% (163 out of 213).

By now, you’re probably thinking, “so what?” I don’t know. Councilman Jacob requested the report, but I’m not sure why. Perhaps we’ll find out Tuesday night.

At first blush, it’s easy to think that, if our own employees don’t want to live in the city, why would anyone else want to move here? But take a look at those numbers again. Most of those employees who live outside of the city are public safety employees, and there are reasonable arguments for why police and other public safety officers would want to live outside of the city they protect (e.g., for their family’s and their own protection and privacy while off-duty). It doesn’t appear from this report that any residency requirements are being violated. Learn about labor poster requirements here to check your Labor law compliance.

The important thing is that all our elected officials, of course, live within the city and have a personal stake in the outcome of any policy directives (e.g., new taxes, fees, land use issues).

Is the Fed too powerful?

Is the Fed too powerful? I’m not smart enough to know the answer to that question. But it does seem to be concerning others, as this AP article reports:

Dusting off Depression-era emergency powers, the Federal Reserve is extending its reach over the economy as never before, pushing the limits of its authority, if not exceeding them.

Now the nation’s central bank is even becoming a source of loans for companies other than banks.

Radical steps by the Fed under chairman Ben Bernanke — all in the name of seeking to halt the panic sweeping financial markets — are turning it into a financial colossus. They’re also putting the government deeper in debt and taxpayers further at risk if the various moves fail.

And it’s being done with little direct interaction with Capitol Hill. The Fed does not depend on Congress for its budget, including its payroll, and is as much a creature of the nation’s banking system as part of the federal government.

[…] The Bernanke Fed has its critics. Former Chairman Paul Volcker has said its been acting “at the limits” of it’s legal authority. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, made abolishing it a central part of his GOP presidential candidacy. And Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., an opponent of Fed and Treasury bailouts, said recently, “The greed on Wall Street is only exceeded by the stupidity of the Treasury secretary and the chairman of the Federal Reserve.”

And the Populist Party website says the Fed isn’t even constitutional:

[The Fed] is illegal according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which happens to be the inviolable law of the land. The article states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. In 1935, the US Supreme Court ruled the Congress cannot constitutionally delegate its power to another group or body. The Congress thus acted in violation of the Constitution it’s sworn to uphold and in so doing created the Federal Reserve System that…is a private for-profit corporation operating at the expense of the public welfare.

Maybe that sounds too much like a conspiracy theory. But in light of the $700 billion bailout rescue package that was recently approved by Congress, and the additional steps being taken by the Fed as the Dow continues to plummet, it does make one wonder. Any financial wizards or constitutional/history scholars out there have some insight into this issue?

The museum and the economy

Several people have asked (rhetorically, no doubt) how the City can still be considering building a museum given the current economic climate. So I posed a few questions about that to the Museum Collaboration Group, and they graciously responded:

Q: In light of the current economic conditions, especially the so-called credit crunch, how would this museum be built even in your current fundraising goals were met?

A: “We have always said we would not begin building until we had met our fund-raising goals. We won’t start with a partially funded building. So, if our funding goals are met, we’ll build the museum.”

Q: Would you have access to the funds you would need to borrow to make this project a reality?

A: “We have never planned to take out long-term loans to build the museum. Some short-term bridge loans have always been factored into the plans, and we do not expect that these loans will be unavailable.”

Q: How is the current economic climate affecting your efforts?

A: “We are concerned about the current economic climate, but to date we are still on plan with our fundraising efforts.”

No mystery why D150 public meetings are poorly attended

District 150 is mystified — mystified! — as to why they can’t get more parents to give the school board their input. After only 13 parents showed up to a recent public meeting, board president David Gorenz was quoted by the Journal Star as saying, “It’s one of the most difficult issues districts face, how to get input.”

It’s no mystery to me. I think people see these meetings (rightly so) as a complete and total waste of their time. Why? Because the school board has already decided what they are going to do, and the only reasons they have public meetings are (1) to satisfy legal requirements in some cases, and (2) to gain public support for their inevitable decision.

There is no shortage of examples to choose from:

  • In August of this year, the school district had two public hearings to talk about their plans for the new Glen Oak and Harrison school buildings. Although supposedly a chance for the public to give their input, the district had no intention of changing anything about these plans, and they didn’t. Not one idea from the public was entertained; not one slightest variation from the district’s plan was made.
  • When Ken Hinton unveiled his plan to cut 45 minutes of instructional time out of every primary student’s school day, parents came out en masse to oppose it. Did the district listen? Nope. They voted 5-1 to approve it. Then, after weeks of letter-writing, demonstrating, petitioning (over 1,000 people signed petitions against the plan), etc., Hinton decided to restore 60% of the time. Instructional time was still cut despite parents’ pleas that all the time be restored, and despite being presented with alternative plans that would have accomplished the same goals without cutting instructional time.
  • Debbie Wolfmeyer, the new board vice president, when asked to meet with a parent regarding the aforementioned issue, responded, “It is not my role as a Board member to meet with individuals or groups.” So much for getting input from parents.
  • Without any public input at all, the school district decided it was going to build a school in Glen Oak Park and started buying up houses to make that a reality. When parents and neighbors turned out en masse to oppose it (including five neighborhood organizations and a city councilman), they were dismissed as a “vocal minority” by one school board member. Only a lawsuit against the park board stopped that from going through.

Eventually, people get the hint. The school board isn’t really interested in hearing their opinions or input — unless it agrees with what they’ve already decided. They’ve already made up their minds what they’re going to do, and “public input” meetings are, at best, an attempt to convince the ignorant masses why the board’s ideas are best.

The school board should be happy that fewer people are coming to the meetings — it makes their jobs so much easier when there’s no one around to disagree with their predetermined plans.

Note: Merle Widmer has a different take on Gorenz’s comment.