All posts by C. J. Summers

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

I can barely hold back the tears

[Said Councilman Eric] Turner, who along with Councilman Clyde Gulley, were the only two to vote against the [Wal-Mart package liquor license] denial. “This is a national corporation trying to create an opportunity to compete with their competitors.”
Journal Star, 3/26/08

I’ve been sobbing all morning about poor old Wal-Mart being denied that package liquor license at last night’s council meeting. Whatever will the Walton family do? How will they survive? How can they overcome this detrimental competitive disadvantage? Oh, woe is Wal-Mart! Is there no justice for this poor, persecuted store? Boo-hoo-hoo!

Circular reasoning on downtown parking

Circular parking rampThe City was poised to raise special event parking rates in downtown Peoria parking decks by one dollar last night — from $5 to $6. But it got deferred. Why? Evidently because they want to make sure such a supposedly draconian increase is warranted; to assess whether parking attendants are capable of making $4 change when presented with a sawbuck; to survey the cost of parking in private decks to make sure they’re not going to lose parking patrons. They’re going to do a study and come back with a report in May.

Oh brother.

The City is operating their parking decks at a loss. They are subsidizing downtown parking by setting their rates artificially low. So if they find that private parking decks are matching the City’s parking rates, that’s going to mean one of two things: either the private decks have figured out how to run a profit at that rate (in which case one should ask why the City is running such a huge loss), or else the City’s low rates are artificially depressing the rates private parking decks can charge. I can guarantee you it’s the latter. It has caused several private parking decks to close since the city started getting into the parking business.

So the City’s plan is, apparently, to base its rates on the rates of private parking decks, whose rates are artificially low because of the subsidized rates charged at City decks. Brilliant! A perfect defense for further parking subsidies downtown that the City can ill afford.

Here we go again: Guilt by association

To listen to talk radio these days, you’d think that Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago are the same person. They think the same thoughts, and they have the same motivations. And if Obama gets elected, he’s going to advocate for Civil War reparations.

Right. And Mitt Romney was going to spread Mormonism across the U.S. and advocate polygamy. And John Kennedy was going to let the Pope tell him how to run the country. Haven’t we been through this gauntlet enough times that we don’t have to keep rehashing it every election… multiple times?

I guess not.

We’ve got to remember that we live in postmodern times. Just because someone attends a particular church is not necessarily an indication that they believe or practice what that church teaches — at least, not in toto. John Kerry was Catholic, but pro-choice. Bill Clinton was a Baptist, but, well, we all know what Clinton did.

People attend church these days for any number of reasons — because they were raised in that church, because they are rebelling against the church in which they were raised, because they are seeking God or what certain religions are about, because they feel that the church is authentic even if they don’t agree with everything that’s being preached, because it’s politically expedient, because their wife/husband wants to go there, etc. Some people even attend church because they believe the doctrine the church teaches, but that isn’t as prevalent as it once was.

So, I think this whole thing about what church Obama attended and what his pastor said is a big bunch of nothing. He’s denounced the things Rev. Wright said that were extreme and inflammatory. Let’s take him at his word and move on. He’s not Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright isn’t running for President.

As expected, a variance is requested

On the agenda for the April 10, 2008, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting is this item:

CASE NO. ZBA 2878

Petitioner Franklin Scudder, on behalf of Richard Hayes, is requesting a 100% variance from the provisions of the Land Development Code for the Heart of Peoria Article 4.1.5.E.2. to eliminate and exceed the attached garage design standard of placement 6 feet behind the longest plane of the street-side façade to 12 feet in front of the longest street-side façade plane. Approval of the request will result in an 18-foot variance. The property is located at 819 E. Fairoaks Avenue, in the R-4 Single-Family Residential Zoning District.

I reported on this earlier this month:

This is a new house being built in an older neighborhood — in fact, it’s within the Heart of Peoria Plan area and falls under the regulations of the Land Development Code. The site plan that was submitted to and approved by the city was in compliance. But the house that’s constructed there — and almost completed — is different than the site plan, and decidedly not in compliance (The attached garage was supposed to be “set back 6? from longest plane of street side facade,” but instead it was built 12? in front of the facade, a difference of 18?). Once it came to the attention of the Planning & Growth Department, a stop work order was issued, and now the contractor will either have to comply with the approved site plan or seek a variance.

He’s seeking a variance, as expected. If he gets it, we’ll have a new way around the Land Development Code — submit a compliant site plan to the city, then build whatever you really want. It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission, you see. Since apparently no one with the City checks to see if construction is proceeding as approved, I predict we’ll be seeing a lot of these kinds of projects in the Heart of Peoria Plan area.

Thought experiment: Annexation

The date is November 21, 1964. The voters are going to the polls to decide whether Peoria should annex Richwoods Township. The voters approve annexation by a slim margin: only 336 votes.

But let’s do a little thought experiment, just for fun. Suppose that vote had gone the other way. Suppose the annexation vote had lost by 336 votes. What would things look like today? What would be different? What would be the same?

Here’s some further background info. From a 1979 article in Illinois Issues:

The population of “old” Peoria slipped from 106,000 in 1960 to less than 100,000 in 1970, but the addition of Richwoods added some 25,000 new residents to its population. Present city officials believe that the tax revenues collected from the Richwoods section have been vital to the city in maintaining its services in the older parts of Peoria.

The annexation has not been without cost to the city. Because Richwoods, like so many fringe areas around Illinois cities, had been developed according to the relatively lax zoning, construction and planning standards of county government, resulting deficiencies became Peoria’s responsibility to remedy. Fortunately, a preannexation agreement with Peoria County spared the city from having to remedy all the problems at once. As Peoria’s Mayor Richard E. Carver complained recently: “Our city is, even today, spending millions of dollars developing the basic road network which would normally have been constructed as the area developed had there been an adequate degree of planning and control present at that time.”

And also, here are a couple of charts from an undated (but apparently late-1990s) report on Peoria population growth (click on the thumbnails below to view larger image):

Peoria Population Chart Peoria Population Density Chart

On the population chart, you’ll notice that population declined from 1970 to 1990. Census figures from 2000 (not included on the chart) show the population was 112,936 — a further decline. There have been special censuses conducted since 2000 that would indicate population is rising, but since they only look at population growth in one section of the city, they’re not really comparable to the decennial censuses.

One argument is that population migration would not have been any different if the annexation referendum had failed. The 15-square-mile Peoria would have suffered from the population loss, while Richwoods Township would have been a boomtown, acquiring all the wealth that used to belong to Peoria. The two municipalities would look identical to the way they look today (booming growth to the north, destitute of commerce to the south).

The other argument is that Peoria and Richwoods would have been in competition for residents and businesses, and thus would have both been stronger as a result. Without greenfield development sites, Peoria would have had to invest its money revitalizing or keeping vital its east bluff, west bluff, and south side neighborhoods, attracting developers and industry to the core of the city, etc. It would have incentivized people and businesses to stay in the city instead of acquiescing to the perceived inevitability of northward migration. As a result, Richwoods would still be a boomtown, but Peoria would not be in as bad of condition as it is today (infrastructure, commerce).

Which scenario do you buy? Or do you have a completely different scenario you think would have played out?

Open Thread

I’ve actually started a number of potential blog posts, but haven’t published them yet either because I didn’t have time to finish them, or I needed to get some more information, or I lost interest about halfway through writing them. Maybe it’s writer’s block.

In any case, here’s an open thread. Talk about whatever you wish, but I’m especially curious what you all think about the Obama/Rev. Wright brouhaha. Also, thank you to everyone who answered my unscientific survey about Main Street — very interesting discussion. I’ll have more to say about that in the near future.

The games we play for federal funds

First of all, kudos to the Peoria Times-Observer for putting their articles online. Welcome to the Internet.

Secondly, take a look at this article about the Northmoor Road improvement project. Apparently, they have to plan for five lanes in order to get federal funding, even though they have no intention of building five lanes:

The federal government is willing to pay for a project that only involves three lanes as long as planning is done for five lanes. [Sen. Dale] Risinger said the city has no choice but to go along with the federal government’s wishes.

“This project is well beyond the scope of the city’s ability to pay,” he said. “We need the federal funds … Don’t worry about five lanes being built. That’s the city’s decision. You are the city.”

The article doesn’t say, but I’m going to conjecture that the advantage of planning for five lanes is that it will be less expensive to upgrade if needed in the future. Which means that the federal government evidently sees five lanes as inevitable in the long run. Hopefully the City doesn’t see the three-lane solution as temporary.

But there’s one other thing that I find surprising. Risinger says this road project “is well beyond the scope of the city’s ability to pay.” How can this be? I thought with all the tax base we’re capturing to the north through annexation and the increases in population that come with it, we should be awash in money for infrastructure improvements. How can this infrastructure improvement in North Peoria be beyond our ability to pay?