All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
City of Peoria, Illinois American Water

Water main leak at Main and Madison

3 Comments

I just received this press release from the City of Peoria:

Due to a water main leak downtown in the intersection of Main Street and Madison Avenue, lanes will be reduced while Illinois American Water Company and Ameren make repairs to their utilities. Please plan your route accordingly to avoid this intersection for the next week as delays will be possible. It is anticipated that one lane of traffic will be maintained in all directions – but this may be subject to change depending on the extent of damage found when making the repairs.

2008 Campaign, Nation/World

Make entitlements, not war

45 Comments

Colleen Callahan, Democratic candidate for the 18th Congressional District, has announced that she advocates ending the war and withdrawing troops according to an “orderly time line.”

Callahan, whose husband Dick is a Vietnam veteran, visited Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 at her own expense while accompanying the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. She said she saw first-hand the destruction war causes and likely would not have voted in favor of the war.

That’s so easy to say now, knowing what we know now. It’s like saying, “If I were Buddy Holly, I would have taken the bus on February 3, 1959.” Yeah, obviously. Even if she were to argue that at the time, based on what she knew then, she wouldn’t have voted to go to war, so what? We don’t have a DeLorean with a flux capacitor that will allow us to go back in time and change that decision. We have to deal with what is, not what we believe should have been.

Until a stable government is operating, it would be misguided foreign policy and, frankly, immoral, to simply abandon the Iraqi people. Violence and genocide would ensue after withdrawal, resulting in millions of Iraqi deaths. That would embitter the Iraqi people (and further embitter others in the region) against the U. S., and our enemies (al-Qa’ida) would be able to parlay that into more violence against us, as well.

But perhaps the most disappointing thing is Callahan’s reason for pulling our troops out of Iraq — economics:

“Just imagine what we could do with an extra $12 billion a month [that we wouldn’t be spending on the war]: focus on relief of high gas prices, develop a functional health care system, begin infrastructure improvements and fund the war on drugs and crime in our own community,” she said Wednesday in front of the World Wars I and II Memorial in the Peoria County Courthouse Plaza.

Is this really a good reason to pull out of Iraq — so we can have more money to feed our oil addiction and start new government entitlement programs? Let Iraq descend into wanton violence and genocide so we can have cheap gas and government-funded health care? How callous and provincial is that?

Traffic

Question of the Day: What would you do?

27 Comments

I’m doing an unscientific survey, and I hope you’ll help by leaving a comment with your answer, even if you don’t normally comment (perhaps especially if you don’t normally comment):

Do you drive down Main Street on a regular or semi-regular basis? In other words, is it a normal route for you to take someplace like work, church, friend’s or family’s home, downtown or socializing, etc.? If so, what would you do if the city were to narrow Main Street from five to three lanes, slowing traffic down to 25 or 30 miles per hour?

Answer any way you want, but here are some options to get you thinking: Would you keep your same route and just drive the slower speed (maybe leave home a little earlier to compensate for it)? Would you look for an alternate, faster route? Would you cut through the surrounding neighborhoods to try to somehow gain time? Would you take Martin Luther King Drive as an alternate route (either now, or if it were improved)? Would you just not go out at all if it involved driving in that area? There are other options; these are just a few to prime the pump.

Heart of Peoria Plan, West Bluff

Campaign for a Walkable West Bluff

1 Comment

Campaign for a Walkable West Bluff logoSometimes, like when the City Council is trying to shut down the Heart of Peoria Commission, you start to wonder if residents are still interested in the Heart of Peoria Plan, walkable neighborhoods, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, and other facets of New Urbanism.

That’s why I was so excited to hear about this grassroots effort by West Bluff residents to create a Campaign for a Walkable West Bluff. They will be meeting tonight (March 18) at 6:30 p.m. in Bradley Hall, Room 142, if you’re interested in getting involved.

Here’s an article that was published in my neighborhood newsletter, written by those organizing this new campaign. It explains a little bit more about what they hope to achieve:

A group of neighbors and business owners in the West Bluff community are initiating a Campaign for a Walkable West Bluff, which we see as an effort to embrace “New Urbanism” as it pertains to quality of life in our neighborhoods. New Urbanism promotes walkable, neighborhood-based development as an alternative to sprawl. It is highlighted in DPZ’s Heart of Peoria (HOP) plan.

We believe that by creating a vibrant Main Street Corridor, we can also spur new mixed-use development, encourage the refurbishment of existing properties and even slow the speed of cars traveling through our neighborhoods. Improving our commercial district will potentially increase our property values, increase owner occupancy of our homes and help combat the perception that the West Bluff is unsafe.

We have met with Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken and she is enthusiastic about the possibilities such a partnership among neighbors presents. As our campaign takes shape, our intent is to collaborate with existing initiatives (West Bluff Council, Renaissance Park and Heart of Peoria Commissions) and events (Grand Tour of Homes, Moss Avenue Sale) to build community-wide support and make change happen. We may even organize a few walking, bus riding and biking events ourselves!

We are taking our cue in part from an excellent book we have discovered titled “The Great Neighborhood Book: A Do-it Yourself Guide to Placemaking” by Jay Walljasper, Senior Fellow at Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org). This book is full of ideas for improving neighborhoods from communities across the country and the world. The recurring theme in this book is that ordinary people getting together and having fun is the best way to generate ideas and find solutions to common problems.

Our next meeting is set for March 18, 2008 at 6:30 pm in Bradley Hall, Room 142. We invite you to join us. We are interested in meeting with neighbors to answer questions and gather input.

“Long experience has shown us that bottom-up strategies work better than top-down approaches. The bottom-up strategy recognizes citizens as the experts, is guided by the wisdom of the community, and builds a strong partnership between the public and private sectors.” –Jay Walljasper, “The Great Neighborhood Book: A Do-it Yourself Guide to Placemaking.”

This campaign has also been profiled in the Journal Star and the Bradley Scout.

Amtrak, City of Peoria

Improved train access in works for Peoria

34 Comments

Amtrak LogoThe first steps are being taken to restore passenger train service to Peoria — a city that at one time was a hub for train passengers from all over the country.

IDOT has informed the City that a preliminary meeting with Amtrak will take place this Friday to determine which train routes they will study. Within the next two weeks, they will begin the feasibility study in earnest, and hope to have the results by late summer. Last year, IDOT and Amtrak did a feasibility study on providing train service to the Quad Cities, and the report was very favorable.

In the meantime, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association is working with legislators in Springfield to improve Peoria’s access to existing train service in Bloomington and Galesburg:

This week, an Illinois Senate Committee debated a proposal to establish better intercity bus service directly connected to Amtrak service…. Senator Michael Frerichs (D-Champaign) introduced SB 2178 to authorize the State to contract with private bus companies to provide feeder bus service that complement existing Amtrak routes….

Another key corridor is I-74 that connects Peoria, Bloomington-Normal and Champaign-Urbana. There should be intercity bus service between two of our largest university towns for lots of good economic development reasons. And Peoria currently doesn’t have any Amtrak service, so a connection to two Amtrak lines makes a lot of sense. That’s a 90 mile trip, so it’s $180 for each one-way trip. 9 passengers who each pay $10 for a bus ticket and $10 for a train ticket make that a break-even proposition. If that route is extended northwest to Galesburg to connect to that Amtrak service (another 50 miles) we might find another 5 passengers to justify that additional $100 cost.

Note that there is currently Thruway service on the I-74 route offered by Burlington Trailways, but those two daily round-trips between Davenport, Iowa and Indianapolis, IN are not particularly designed around the Amtrak schedules.

Amtrak ridership in Illinois has been hitting record levels the past few years. According to Amtrak and IDOT officials, 3.6 million passengers used Amtrak stations in Illinois in FY2007, including all trains at Amtrak Chicago Union Station.

Ray LaHood

Tribune: Earmarks are great, or are they?

5 Comments

The Chicago Tribune published an opinion column by John McCarron on March 7 (“Pork has gotten bad rap”) praising and defending the federal earmark system, complete with a paeon to Rep. Ray LaHood — a staunch defender of earmarks himself.

His argument is that earmarks don’t cost that much (“less than 2 percent of federal spending”) and generally go to worthy projects (like the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum and the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program). He argues that people just don’t like seeing how the sausage is made, but they still like the sausage. “The ability to bring home the bacon is the oil (not to say ‘grease’) that slides together the disparate coalitions needed to pass legislation…. It may not be pretty, but it’s how stuff gets done.”

Yet, toward the end of the article, he proposes reform, which begs the question, why would we need reform to a system that has “been around as long as the republic,” isn’t wasteful, and is generally for the public good?

I don’t know of anyone who is against federal spending on worthy projects in an open and transparent manner. What is objectionable is the secretive, unaccountable way these projects are slipped into unrelated appropriations bills. This leads to two problems. One is waste, which doesn’t seem to bother Mr. McCarron too much; he dismisses $18 billion as a pittance by comparing it to overall federal spending. This is a similar argument to those who say U. S. war spending is low because it’s only 4% of GDP and less than 1% of the total economy; it all depends on one’s perspective, I guess. The other problem, however, is priorities. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense:

Some [government] agencies reported that “implementation of these [earmarked] directives can displace agencies’ program priorities as the agencies redirect resources to comply with these directives.” A recent report by the Department of Transportation Inspector General echoed these sentiments: “earmarks may not be the most effective or efficient use of funds on programs…. Many earmarked projects considered by the agencies as low priority are being funded over higher priority, non-earmarked projects.” The same study found that nearly 99 percent of all earmarked projects “were not subject to the agencies’ review and selection processes,” bypassing the agency’s normal review process.

So McCarron writes this article ostensibly in defense of earmarks, but toward the end of the article he nevertheless admits that there is a lack of accountability and that some projects deserve a bad reputation — like the iconic “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska — and ends up proposing essentially the same reform that Taxpayers for Common Sense advocates:

No, what’s needed isn’t a ban on earmarks but a more sensible way to evaluate and prioritize projects.

Stephen Schlickman, executive director of our Regional Transportation Authority, recommends a vetting system like the Federal Transit Administration’s New Start program. Local agencies like Metra and CTA make their best case for a new rail line or station. Federal technicians evaluate and grade the applications. Congress appropriates accordingly.

Not much of a defense of earmarks, despite the rhetoric earlier in the column. All the public wants is to be able to hold their elected officials accountable and not have their tax dollars wasted. That notion has been around as long as the republic, too.

City Council, City of Peoria

Search firm for city manager to be replaced Tuesday

13 Comments

A special meeting of the Peoria City Council has been called for Tuesday, March 18. Other than a proclamation, there is only one item of business on the agenda: choosing a new search firm to assist the city in selecting a permanent city manager.

Consideration of a MOTION to RESCIND Prior Action Authorizing the HIRING of PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATES LLC and EXECUTIVE SEARCH, INC. AND Consideration of CITY MANAGER SEARCH FIRMS’ PROPOSALS from FRONTIER PARTNERS, INC. and THE MERCER GROUP, with the Possibility of Taking Action to HIRE ONE OF THESE FIRMS, and Authorize the Interim City Manager or Mayor to Execute a CONTRACT with that Firm.

Ironically, on March 3, Councilman Nichting (5th Dist.) moved to hire City Manager Search Firms, The Mercer Group, Inc., and the motion was seconded by Councilman Spears (4th Dist.), but everyone else on the council wanted to hire the other firm, so Council Member Van Auken (2nd Dist.) made a substitute motion, which was approved 7-2 (Councilman Turner was absent).

Reportedly, upon the first meeting with the search firm, a majority of the council and the search firm felt that the relationship wasn’t going to work out, and so the search firm withdrew their offer. Here’s their letter of withdrawal:

Dear Mayor Ardis:

As you know, we submitted a proposal to assist the City of Peoria in the recruitment of a new City Manager on February 21, 2008.

We were honored and pleased when the City Council selected our firm for this task on March 2, 2008.

We quickly started preparations to fulfill our commitments to the duties as outlined in our proposal.

Yesterday it was a great pleasure to meet personally with you to discuss the fundamental aspects of our recruitment process before entering into binding commitments to fulfill the tasks. Thank you for your hospitality.

During the six-hour drive back to Oshkosh last evening, Denise and I discussed the advisability of proceeding. As you know, we have no employees and the three partners perform all of our work. With the Peoria project, we were hopeful that a local associate could perform much of the on-site tasks.

However, our local associate, while experienced in the private sector is unfamiliar with municipal government. It became clear that as such we would need to commit significantly more time and travel than we had anticipated fulfilling the duties associated with the Peoria project.

Given the commitments we have already made to other Wisconsin municipalities and counties, doing the Peoria project would be a very burdensome task. We therefore respectfully request that our proposal to assist the City of Peoria for the recruitment of a City Manager be withdrawn from further consideration.

We are letting you know of this request as soon as possible to minimize the delay in your proceeding on this vital, local task in the City of Peoria. We Wish you all the best, both in recruiting a new City Manager and all future endeavors in your city.

Sincerely,
William D. Frueh
Partner, Public Administration Associates

It’s interesting that one of the reasons Van Auken stated she liked Public Administration Associates better was because “the representative from Executive Search, Inc. was local,” according to the March 3 minutes. But it turns out, according to this withdrawal letter, that their local representative/associate was “unfamiliar with municipal government.” Anyone else find it odd that someone with the firm of Public Administration Associates is only familiar with the private sector? Sounds like that came as a surprise to the council; I can see why they might have been disappointed.

A special meeting was called instead of waiting until the next regular meeting so that the council won’t lose any more time finding a new city manager.

Bradley University, City of Peoria

Don’t we employ people to ensure this doesn’t happen?

22 Comments

As you’ve no doubt seen in the Journal Star, the new parking deck at Bradley University is being built a little too close to Main Street:

The parking deck’s concrete base – which already is in place – is anywhere from 2 to 9 feet closer to the city’s right-of-way property than allowed. “They [the local contractor] found the error and immediately informed us,” Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken, whose district includes Bradley University, said.

My question is, shouldn’t this have been caught sooner? Say, by Peoria’s building inspections department? Aren’t they supposed to make sure that a building is being constructed in compliance with city codes and the approved site plan?

Here’s another example. Take a look at 819 E. Fairoaks (corner of Fairoaks and Illinois). 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.

In both cases, the construction progressed to an advanced stage before non-compliance was discovered. And in both cases, the non-compliance was not discovered by the city, but by someone else (contractor, citizen) who reported it to the city. So my question again is, why isn’t the building inspections department catching this sooner in the construction process? According to the City of Peoria’s website:

The City of Peoria has six full time building inspectors who inspect all construction requiring a permit. These inspectors verify that the construction or alterations specified in the permit are carried out at the construction site.

So, how did they miss these two properties? And how many other properties are out of compliance that haven’t gotten caught?