All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
City of Peoria, Form-Based Code

Sheridan Triangle streetscape improvement meeting March 5

6 Comments

News release from the City of Peoria:

Peoria LogoThe City of Peoria will host a public open house at Columbia Middle School, 2612 North Bootz Avenue on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The purpose of this open house is for the public to review the scope of a study and master plan to implement a streetscape improvement project for the Form District known as the Sheridan Triangle Business District, and to provide input to the public master plan process. The intent of the project is to revitalize the character of the streets in the study area to create urban, pedestrian-friendly streets through narrower travel lanes, wider sidewalks and a tree canopy, as well as other improvements to be determined through this public master plan process.

For further information, please contact Scott Reeise, Civil Engineer, at 494-8801 or sreeise@ci.peoria.il.us.

Museum Block, Peoria County

Museum survey being done by Peoria County (UPDATED)

11 Comments

If you get a call from an automated poll asking your opinion on the Peoria Riverfront Museum, it’s not a call from museum officials, but rather Peoria County. Several readers reported they were getting calls about this, so I put up a post about it. I received this comment explaining the whole thing, which I’m reprinting here so no one misses it:

Hello CJ. I appreciate you and your readers taking an interest in the recent Riverfront Museum Survey. This survey was not conducted by “Museum folks,” but rather by Peoria County Government. Peoria County was approached last year to spend $24 million tax payer dollars to fund the museum project. The only way Peoria County may raise these proceeds is by creating a museum district funded by property taxes or to get legislative authorization for a sales tax. For either, we would need to ask the voters by including a referendum on the ballot.

We decided to take a proactive approach by asking voters before placing the referendum on the ballot. We are very much interested in the results because the results provide guidance for how we should proceed. By conducting this poll, our intention is not to generate more interest in the museum but rather to gauge how much interest our citizens currently have in spending $24 million of their collective dollars to support the museum.

In response to two of your readers’ comments regarding the abrupt conclusion to the survey should a respondent select “no” (or number 2) as to whether he or she feels the museum would be beneficial to the region, both the County Administrator and I approved the survey by taking it via phone several times ourselves. When a respondent selects “no,” the recording says “Thank you for your time. I appreciate your participation.” We believe if a citizen does not feel the museum is beneficial, he or she would not support a tax increase to fund the museum; therefore, by eliciting a negative reply, we had the information we needed from the respondent and did not want to unnecessarily take more of the individual’s time.

It was also respondents’ time that became the deciding factor as to whether we included “undecided” and “none of the above” in the same response. We did debate whether to offer these two replies together or separately, but when you take into consideration our citizens’ busy lifestyles and our appreciation for them taking time out of those schedules to reply to a phone survey, we did not desire to lengthen the survey unnecessarily.

Peoria County’s three possible options as far as tax increases to fund the museum are those we included in the survey: property tax increase for Peoria County property owners, regional property tax increase, or sales tax increase for Peoria County. On the advice of the survey administrator, the County Administrator and I agreed that if someone was “undecided” he or she would be more likely to vote against a tax increase (in any form) than for a tax increase were the question to appear on a ballot. Hence, more often than not, “undecided” would prove to be the same response as “none of the above” and would only serve to unnecessarily lengthen the survey if offered as a separate option. We also felt limiting the options to four rather than five was prudent considering the complexity of each option.

Again CJ, Peoria County Government does appreciate your interest in the Riverfront Museum survey. We value your input and that of your readers. Once we get and share the results with the County Board we will be more than happy to share those results with you. Please feel free to contact me regarding the survey: Jenny Zinkel, Director of Strategic Communications, jzinkel@peoriacounty.org. Thank you.

Many thanks to Jenny Zinkel for setting the record straight.

UPDATE: I received some additional information about the poll:

County Administration decided to conduct a phone survey, but a similar question regarding a tax increase to support museum funding was also included on a mail survey randomly sent to 3000 households in Peoria County. Residents have until March 3 to remit the mail survey. We expect to have results of that survey April 7; the results will then be made public.

Communication Express conducted the phone survey. It was completed yesterday [Monday] and we received results today [Tuesday]. Once we make the results known to the County Board, we will release those results to the public. By week’s end, the whole board will have been notified of the results; I anticipate sending a press release on Monday. The results will be used as guidance for the board when deciding whether to put a referendum on the ballot.

The survey cost was $1367.47. 1009 households participated in the survey: 504 within the City of Peoria, 505 in Peoria County, outside Peoria City limits.

Museum Block

Is museum taking a poll or telemarketing?

4 Comments

I’ve received several reports from readers that the Peoria Riverfront Museum folks are conducting a poll:

It was automated about how I felt about the new museum. As soon as I answered “no” (by pressing 2) on if this project was worthy of Peoria, it hung up on me. –Emtronics

I just got the same phone call from “Susan Anderson” with the same result- hung up after pressing 2 for no. I had debated pressing 1, just to see if they asked any further questions TikTok for business. –Septboy

After listening to all the great things this museum will bring to Peoria my wife graciously pressed 1, which was ‘in support.’ We then were given three different taxing options. I waited to see if “press 4?” would be for none of the above. “Press 4” turned out to be “undecided OR none of the above.” Not, press 4 for undecided and press 5 for none of the above… We hung up. –PeoriaIllinoisan

One reader called it a “push poll.” According to Wikipedia, “In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda … masquerading as a poll.”

Anyone else have an encounter with the museum poll that they’d like to add? Do you think it’s a legitimate attempt to gauge public opinion, or do you think it’s a push poll? I haven’t gotten the call. I’m sure my number has been specifically blacklisted. 😛

CityLink

Another dissatisfied CityLink customer

2 Comments

Another dissatisfied CityLink customer wrote a letter to the editor today:

The Peoria bus system needs an overhaul. […] We need more cross-town busing, buses that run more often, on time, and Sunday buses.

Citizens young and old should not have to wait long periods in the snow, rain, sleet and cold in order to get to work and/or appointments.

This letter-writer is right on target. I have experienced similar dissatisfaction with the city’s bus service; perhaps you remember this post:

I decided to try taking the bus. It was scheduled to arrive about five minutes to nine, so I started to the bus stop at a quarter till. It doesn’t take but maybe four minutes to walk to the bus stop, and I can see the intersection while I’m walking to it. Before I’ve walked for even two minutes, I see the bus go by. It came early — almost ten minutes early. Since it was a Saturday, the buses only run once an hour.

Or this one from last June:

First, bus travel is very slow. Part of the reason is that buses are pretty infrequent. They come only once every half hour during peak times, and once an hour during non-peak times. Plus, nine times out of ten you have to ride to the bus station first and transfer buses. Although the bus lines intersect elsewhere in town, there’s no easy way to transfer buses at these intersections. So unless you live on the same route as your destination, you have to ride to the transfer center first, which can add considerable time to your trip.

Second, many of the bus stops have no bench or shelter. If buses are going to be as infrequent as they are, every bus stop should at least have a bench. I doubt there are many elderly who would or could stand for half an hour to an hour waiting for a bus. Maybe that’s why I’ve never seen any elderly riding the bus. Ideally, each bus stop would also offer a shelter and a map of the various routes so the uninitiated can figure out what route they’re on and how to get to where they’re going.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s noticing. CityLink recently got a new general manager, Tom Lucek, who has over 25 years experience in mass transit. Here’s hoping he brings some much-needed reform to the city’s bus system.

General News

Study finds depression drugs no better than placebo

8 Comments

You know those anti-depression drugs like Zoloft and Prozac? A new study finds that they “work no better than a placebo for the majority of patients with mild or even severe depression,” according to an article published today in The Times (London):

The study, by Irving Kirsch, from the Department of Psychology at the University of Hull, is the first to examine both published and unpublished evidence of the effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which account for 16 million NHS prescriptions a year. It suggests that the effectiveness of the drugs may have been exaggerated in the past by drugs companies cherry-picking the best results for publication.

The study was published by the Public Library of Science (PLoS) and is titled “Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration.” Their published conclusion is, “Drug–placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients. The relationship between initial severity and antidepressant efficacy is attributable to decreased responsiveness to placebo among very severely depressed patients, rather than to increased responsiveness to medication.”

Why does this matter? Because there are serious side effects to SSRIs, not the least of which can be suicidal or homicidal thoughts. Karen McCarron had just come off anti-depressants when she killed her autistic daughter, and NIU shooter Steve Kazmierczak had stopped taking Prozac a couple weeks before he killed five people and himself. There are lots of other examples.

The argument has been that the benefits of SSRIs outweigh the risks. But this study calls into question the efficacy of these anti-depression drugs, which undermines that argument. If SSRIs are no better than a placebo for most patients, then, as the researchers concluded, “there is little reason to prescribe new-generation antidepressant medications to any but the most severely depressed patients unless alternative treatments have been ineffective.”

City of Peoria, Comprehensive Plan

Beware of how Comp Plan survey results are reported

14 Comments

Suppose I told you I was taking a survey, and I wanted you to rank the following four things:

  • family
  • freedom
  • health
  • justice

Now here are the rules: You have to rank them “1,” “2,” “3,” and “4.” You can’t rank them all as “1.” You have to rank them from “1” (most important) to “4” (least important).

You may object that they’re all important, and that you can’t imagine calling any one of them “least important.” But then suppose I assured you that we just wanted to see what was most important to the survey takers so we could set budget priorities. You begrudgingly agree, figuring that I have a good reason for setting up the survey this way and will use the results responsibly.

Then suppose I published the results this way: “Items considered important to survey-takers: freedom, justice. Items not considered important to survey-takers: health, family.” Do you feel like that would be an accurate characterization of your (and the other survey-takers’) feelings about those items? Or would you feel that your feelings are a bit misrepresented?

Well, that’s how I felt when I saw how the Comprehensive Plan survey results were being reported to the city council. The survey has several lists of items that survey-takers are required to rank from most to least important. The results were printed this way in a recent communication to the council:

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SURVEY UPDATE. As of Wednesday, February 13, 912 online surveys have been completed and the www.planpeoria.com web site has received over 1800 visits.

Some of the results of the survey so far include:

  • Three most important services
    • Public Safety
    • Public Education
    • Economic Development

  • Three services areas with the highest level of satisfaction
    • Public Safety
    • Public Health
    • Recreation, Culture, and Natural Resources

  • Who’s Responding
    • 29% from the 61614 zip code
    • 24% from the 61604 zip code
    • 19% from the 61615 zip code

  • Top choices for amenities within walking distance from your home
    • Parks
    • Grocery Stores
    • Schools

  • Amenities not considered important to have within walking distance
    • Work
    • Restaurants

  • Top items that should be required as part of all new residential development
    • Sidewalks
    • Street lighting
    • Underground utilities

  • Items not considered important as part of new residential development
    • Required design standards
    • Required landscaping
    • Required building materials

  • Top items that would make an “ideal neighborhood”
    • Safety
    • Good public infrastructure
    • Good schools
    • Resale value of homes
    • Well maintained houses and yards

  • Items not considered as important to an “idea neighborhood”
    • Proximity to retail
    • Neighborhood associations
    • High density
    • Proximity to employment

  • 36% of respondents would like to live within walking distance from downtown and the riverfront

  • Preferred type of neighborhood
    • 62% Single Family only
    • 14% Single family & duplex / townhouse
    • 2.5% Single family, duplex / townhouse, & apartments
    • 22% Mixed use; all of the above plus retail

Interesting results, which is why I printed them in full. But I take exception to the sections that state certain items are “not considered important” or even “not considered as important.” Considering that survey-takers had no choice but to mark some items as “least important” on a sliding scale, and considering that all the items on the list were important, I don’t think this accurately describes the results.

I don’t know how the final results will be presented, but if this is any indication, I shudder to think what kind of conclusions the council will draw when they see that required design standards are “not considered important” just because sidewalks and streetlights were ranked higher on a forced scale.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Joint City Council/School Board to meet

2 Comments

AgreementThere will be a joint meeting of the Peoria City Council and Peoria Board of Education on Feb. 28 at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall, room 404, to discuss “the enhancement of communities surrounding new schools.” The agenda will be:

I. Review of the committee charge.

II. Review of the committee work.

III. Presentation of “School / Neighborhood Impact Zones” concept.

IV. Discussion of School / Neighborhood Impact Zones in the context of the committee charge.

V. Consensus agreement on plan to move forward with School / Neighborhood Impact Zones as presented or as modified.

VI. Adjournment

The facilitator for the subcommittee, Bill Collier, has also provided this additional information that was distributed by the city:

TO: PEORIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT 150 BOARD OF EDUCATION AND ADMINISTRATION, CITY OF PEORIA MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

FROM: BILL COLLIER, SUBCOMITTEE FACILITAOR, EDUCATION LIAISON FOR MAYOR ARDIS

DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2008

SUBJECT: JOINT CITY COUNCIL / SCHOOL BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE – AGENDA FOR UPCOMING MEETING.

A meeting of the subcommittee on Safe Schools / Safe Neighborhoods, established last fall by District 150 Board of Education President Dr. David Gorenz will be held at 3:00 PM on February 28 in room 404 at City Hall. Some might say that they thought that the subcommittee had died and that nothing had been accomplished. As the facilitator for the committee I apologize for the length of time that has passed; however, I want to assure you that a great deal of work has been done and we are ready to meet once again.

A review of planning activities would include the following activities:

  • Based on the December meeting of the Safe Schools / Safe Neighborhood subcommittee a concept put forth by Councilman Jacob, combined with a previously discussed concept by Councilman Manning, the facilitator put together a focused proposal for discussion among those councilmen and Pat Landes of the City staff.

  • Councilman Gulley was brought into the discussion and Ms. Landes expanded her conversations to include almost all City departments.

  • A presentation was made to Dr. Gorenz, Ms. Ross and Mr. Cahill with the intent to host a subcommittee meeting based on that presentation.

  • Councilmen Jacob, Manning and Gulley along with Ms. Landes continued to meet and work on details.

  • Tri County Planning Commission Executive Director Terry Kohlbuss then entered the picture and has added much to the discussion along with his staff’s support.

  • A “draft” proposal has been developed and is still being worked on, but the time for a subcommittee meeting is right. The “draft” proposal will be the focus of the February 28 meeting.

It is difficult to inform everyone of a proposal, and at the same time not create concern as to why a particular group was informed first. I am sensitive to that concern thus I thought it might be informative if I offered a couple of comments related to the path I anticipate this proposal taking.

First, the “concept” originated in the subcommittee meeting so it was my position that it should return to the subcommittee before going forward to the City Council, School Board, other governmental bodies and the general public through the media.

Since City Council members and City staff have developed the concept into a proposal the next logical step will be for a formal City Council presentation in the near future followed by a similar presentation before the School Board. Once we reach a consensus with those two bodies, we will take the proposal/concept to the Park District, County of Peoria, neighborhood associations, social service agencies—a nearly unlimited list of potential partners.

It is my hope that all subcommittee members will be present and I would welcome all school board members, City council members as well as all relevant administrative and management team members from both bodies. In my opinion this presentation is what I call BIG. I am very impressed with the time, energy and leadership that George, Bob, Clyde, Pat and Terry have given to this project. What has been most impressive, however is their passion to support District 150 and revitalize the neighborhoods. I really believe that if the proposal is accepted and given priority Peoria will be looked at for developing a comprehensive cooperative agreement among a large and diverse number of participants.

Please free up your schedule, attend this important meeting, offer your comments-suggestions-concerns and help formalize this far reaching, long-term neighborhood revitalization/stabilization project.

Thursday February 28 3:00 PM in room 404 at City Hall.

Thank you,
Bill Collier

City of Peoria

Tracy Cross to present market study for downtown housing Feb. 26

Leave a comment

I heard about this from Peoria Economic Development Director Craig Hullinger during the Heart of Peoria Commission meeting. He wouldn’t give any details, but he said they asked for an honest study of the market for downtown housing, and he wasn’t sure what to expect, but that the outcome is positive. So he encouraged us to watch or listen to the presentation at the next council meeting.

Here’s the city’s press release:

Market Study for in and near downtown housing – Presentation Feb 26 at 4:00 pm at City Hall

The City of Peoria has retained the prestigious housing market research firm of Tracy Cross to assess the market for new and rehabbed housing in and near downtown Peoria. The firm will present their findings at an open meeting at the City Council Chambers of the 4th floor of City Hall at 419 Fulton Street at 4:00 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2008. The firm will answer questions.

Anyone interested in urban redevelopment in Peoria, or in developing, building, or living in or near downtown Peoria is encouraged to attend.

Continue reading Tracy Cross to present market study for downtown housing Feb. 26 →

Bradley-Epworth UMC, The Uplands

Bradley-Epworth withdraws special use request

3 Comments

Bradley-Epworth UMCNeighbors had steeled themselves for a vigorous debate on a church expansion proposal Thursday night, but the issue was defused when the church withdrew its special use request.

Bradley-Epworth United Methodist Church, 1314 W. Columbia Terrace, has been acquiring property for the past few years. They purchased 1215 N. University St., adjacent to the church, in September 2004, and in 2005 got a special use permit to house its student ministries there. Since then, the church has purchased two more homes on University (1205 and 1207) and the house at 1216 N. Elmwood, which is also adjacent to the church. They currently use the homes at 1205 and 1207 University as rental property. The Elmwood house is vacant.

The stated long-range plan was to acquire up to ten properties, leave the houses intact, but use them for ministry purposes, such as a 24-hour house of prayer, a coffee shop, etc. They would also pave the back yards of the properties to provide additional parking for the church.

Church officials recently requested a special use permit for the Elmwood property to use the house for church offices.

The church is located in the Uplands neighborhood. The Uplands Residential Association voted in favor of the church’s special use request in June 2007. However, several URA members — including several Elmwood Ave. residents — complained that they were not informed a vote was going to be taken on the special use request at that meeting. Only nine people attended the June 2007 meeting.

The issue was on the agenda again Thursday because the one of the intended uses of the property was to house guest speakers overnight in one of the bedrooms of the Elmwood house. That use was not approved at the June 2007 meeting because it wasn’t presented as part of the special use request. Church and URA officials mistakenly believed that overnight stays would not have to be specified in the special use request since the house is already zoned residential. When they found out that all uses had to be specified, URA officials brought it back to the Association for a vote.

But the vote never happened.

Jerry Jackson, Second VP of the Association and chairman of the Associations’ Zoning and Land Use Committee, read a short e-mail from Bradley-Epworth pastor Tom Eckhardt. Here’s the e-mail, reprinted in its entirety:

Jerry [Jackson] and Bernie [Goitein, URA President],

I wanted to let you know that Bradley Epworth Church is withdrawing its request to the city for special use zoning of the property at 1216 N. Elmwood. In addition, we no longer plan to use our properties currently zoned as residential for any purpose other than residential, specifically that there will be no effort on our part to put in parking for the church behind the University properties or anywhere else.

Tom Eckhardt
Pastor, Bradley Epworth Church

Jackson also stated that it was his understanding the church would be divesting themselves of the properties at 1205 and 1207 N. University, and that the church is looking for an alternative site to hold their largest worship service.

No reason for the change in plans was given.

Several Elmwood Ave. residents published an article in the neighborhood newsletter, The Uplander, outlining their concerns about the church’s recent acquisitions and expansion plans. It’s unknown whether the article’s publication prompted the church to reconsider its special use request.

After the e-mail was read, several members in attendance indicated they felt this was a positive development for the neighborhood. However, one couple that spoke at the meeting thought it was a negative, saying they were worried that the houses on University would fall into the hands of a slumlord. If that happened, they said it would negatively affect their property, since they live across the alley from those houses.