All posts by C. J. Summers

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

Potpourri Post

15 Comments

I’m not really in the mood to do a lot of in-depth research on some recent topics in the news, so I’m just going to throw some stuff out there for discussion today.

  • Rod Blagojevich wants to replace the corporate income tax with a gross receipts tax (GRT) and raise payroll taxes. The biggest reason for these changes is so Illinois can provide health care for everyone. I more or less agree with the Journal Star’s editorial on this. As a friend of mine put it recently, Blagojevich is playing on the ignorant among us — those who think that massive tax increases on businesses won’t impact them personally. Of course it impacts them/us — businesses hire fewer people and pass on as much of their increased costs to the consumer as the market will bear. The Chicago Sun Times has a good article on the GRT.
  • I saw on WEEK.com last night that a kindergarten teacher was assaulted yesterday. A kindergarten teacher. Assaulted. By another adult. In the classroom. Think about that for a minute. It’s not enough that we have kids who bring guns to school, now we have an adult that just waltzes in and starts beating a teacher? A kindergarten teacher! We’re on the threshold of anarchy here.
  • If you’ve never read Woodford Tax Facts blog before, you should take a look. They have well-researched and interesting posts, like this one on the history of property taxes in Illinois.
  • PeoriaIllinoisan is keeping up on developments along Main Street. Anyone know what, if anything, is going to be built at the site of the old Steak ‘n’ Shake and the adjacent properties now that the apartments have been razed?
  • Tonight is the Uplands Residential Association meeting where we will be discussing Bradley’s request to rezone the Pi Beta Phi Sorority house N1 (institutional). The last vote we took was to deny, but it was sparsely attended. Now that there’s been more press coverage, I expect there will be a larger group tonight, so there’s no telling which way the vote will go. Some think it would help bring stability to that property, which it probably will — for that property, and in the short term. But I don’t think it will do much to stabilize the properties around it and will give Bradley a beachhead on the north side of Main, making it easier to expand in the future. I’ll be voting against N1 zoning tonight.
  • I’ll be immersing myself in the city’s sign ordinance in the coming weeks. I’ve been appointed to an ad hoc committee that will be looking at that portion of the Land Development Code dealing with signs on businesses. Officially, it’s called the “Form-Based District Sign Review Committee,” and we’ll be meeting a few times in March and April. I expect I’ll learn more about the sign business than I ever thought possible.
  • One of my favorite online journals, The New Atlantis has an interesting article on electronic toys (aka, “robo-toys”) and their effect on children.
  • Baseball season is just around the corner, and it’s time for the World Champion St. Louis Cardinals to defend their title. Which reminds me, I thought it was nice of the Cubs to put this up on their marquee:
Chicago Cubs congratulate Cardinals

😉

Bradley University

A Matter of Trust

11 Comments

I was re-reading Bradley’s original 1991 institutional plan. At that time, they had a committee that consisted of two representatives each from Bradley University, the Arbor District (then called “Bradley West”), Moss-Bradley, and the Uplands, plus the president of the West Bluff Council. How did this work? Here’s how they explained it:

II. The Process
At the onset, the Committee agreed to:

  • A. Review Neighborhood/University issues
  • B. Identify those issues which could be addressed via the institutional plan
  • C. Openly discuss the issues with the pupose of seeking meaningful and long-term solutions

To accomplish its objective, the Committee also agreed that the process should initially involve only committee members. This approach was thought best because open dialogue could occur and sensitive issues could be discussed. Further, matters of a confidential nature (particularly dealing with property) could be addressed and considered as necessary. It was the Committee’s consensus that issues would best be initially addressed through Committee discussions rather than through the media. Upon identifying its best preliminary plan, the Committee agreed to then present it to the Neighborhoods for comment and input. Subsequently, the Committee’s timetable called for presentation of the plan to the West Bluff Council and, finally, through the process established by the City of Peoria.

Sounds like a pretty good plan, doesn’t it? I mean, it appears to solve the problem of property acquisition issues while still keeping the neighborhoods informed through their representatives. It’s an inspired plan, in my opinion. So, why didn’t the university follow it when acquiring homes on Maplewood?

At the zoning commission hearing, Vice President Gary Anna explained that the university “agonized” over this issue, but they decided to buy the houses the way they did (surreptitiously) because (a) the properties were vital to the university’s plan, and (b) if they had made their intentions known ahead of time, they probably wouldn’t have been able to afford to buy the properties and their plan would have been kaput.

Working with the neighborhoods might have ruined their plan, so they had to make a choice: do we take that chance and try to work with the neighborhoods anyway like a good neighbor, or do we pursue our plan secretly and unilaterally? Bradley chose the latter, and is not ashamed to defend their “ends-justify-the-means” method in front of the zoning commission.

The Gravel Lot

Gravel Lot at Duryea and Bradley Ave

To give further insight into Bradley’s method of doing business, there’s a gravel parking lot at the corner of Bradley Avenue and Duryea Place that was supposed to be sealcoated in 1992 to provide a dustless surface, and then paved in 1994. Here it is 15 years later and the parking lot is still gravel and dusty.

What was Mr. Anna’s response to this? Take a listen for yourself:

[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/ZC.mp3]

I know it’s a little scratchy — the city needs a better recording system. He starts out saying he’s going to respond to Commissioner Klise’s observation about the gravel lot and he admits that it should have been improved long ago because that’s what they agreed to back in 1991. Then he says:

We did pay a penalty for not doing that at one point in time. It was assessed by the city, and, as you can imagine, it was relatively inconsequential compared to what the cost of improving it would be.

It was cheaper to pay the fine than to do the work they agreed to do. So the lot remains unimproved to this day as a monument to their broken promise, their commitment to pragmatism over integrity. This is yet another example of how they have no qualms about breaking the rules when it suits their plan or their desires.

Conclusion?

How can neighborhood associations not look upon this institution with suspicion in light of these actions? What basis is there for trust? There is none. All you can do is hope to high heaven that your needs fit into their plans, because if they don’t, your neighborhood plans and needs are the ones that will get thrown away like so much rubbish.

Does Bradley do good things? Yes. Are they a good school? I think so. Does that mean that we should just approve their new plan and blindly trust that they will honor it any more than their old plan? No.

Once again, Bradley is making overtures to their neighbors, having meetings and portraying the image of an institution willing to collaborate with surrounding residents. But it’s clear from their past actions that this renewed interest will only last as long as it’s convenient for them. And at any rate, their parking deck — the most egregious part of their plan — is not negotiable.

What can be done to protect neighborhoods? At the very least, the city should set a very, very consequential fine for the slightest deviation from Bradley’s new plan, since “inconsequential” fines are meaningless. And if they ever have to pay that fine, it should be divvied up among the adjacent neighborhood associations.

Ideally, they shouldn’t even have their new plan approved, and should be forced to find a more reasonable plan — one that has more suitable segue from institutional to residential zoning than a five-story parking deck. Approving their plans with no modification basically gives the city’s blessing on their underhanded tactics and sends another message that older neighborhoods are not important to the city — not important enough to protect from wanton, unilateral encroachment, anyway.

If pressed, I’m sure Bradley is creative enough to come up with an alternative that will satisfy the needs of the university and the neighborhood. The question is, will they be pressed?

The Peoria Chronicle

Happy Pulaski Day

4 Comments

Count Casimir Pulaski
Happy Casimir Pulaski Day, everyone! In honor of the “Father of the American Cavalry,” and in light of the fact that my wife is one-quarter Polish, I’m taking the day off from blogging.

You know, every year at this time, people all over Illinois ask the same question: Who in the heck was Casimir Pulaski? I encourage you to read up on this Revolutionary War hero and find out why all the kiddies get the day off from school. Then when your friends ask you who Pulaski is, you can say, “are you kidding me? You’ve never heard of Casimir Pulaski? What, did you flunk fourth grade?” And then proceed to enthrall them with stories of Pulaski’s exciting exploits at the Battle of Brandywine and Warren’s Tavern!

Well, whatever you decide to do, enjoy Illinois’ only Polish-American holiday, and I’ll see you all tomorrow.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Actions speak louder than words

14 Comments

In Saturday’s paper, the editors write about how terrible it is that the City of Peoria is ending its involvement with District 150’s crossing guard program, looking at water user fees that would impact the district, and moving toward establishing two new TIFs that would also impact D150. The title and main point of their editorial: “Actions speak louder than words.”

Indeed.

From the same paper, in an article on District 150’s plan to demolish three houses they purchased adjacent to Glen Oak Park:

[District treasurer Guy] Cahill said the district hasn’t abandoned its interest in building a school on that site one day, which is part of the reason why demolition is an appropriate choice.

“We never intended to have those houses there in the long-run anyway. In other words, the homes add no value to that property near or long-term,” Cahill said after the meeting.

Never mind that every neighborhood association came out against the school in the park. Never mind that the Park Board denied a land-sharing agreement that was critical for the school’s plans to locate there. Never mind that the City of Peoria, while not officially voting on it, nevertheless made clear its displeasure and even made overtures to help the district keep the school at the current Glen Oak School site. No, today we read that “the district hasn’t abandoned its interest in building a school on that site one day,” and thus will commence with demolishing the houses already purchased — a few at a time, apparently.

In other words, the school district is collectively giving Peoria the finger.

Hence, I don’t shed one tear over the actions the City has taken to start withdrawing support from District 150. It’s not like the City hasn’t tried to cooperate. In 2006, the City extended to District 150 $311,105 in operating costs, $575,000 in capital costs, and $236,000 in debt service costs — a total of $1,122,105. Did they ever ask anything from District 150 in return for that? Once: they asked that the Woodruff attendance area replacement school be built at the site of the current Glen Oak School building — and even offered to throw in $500,000 more for property acquisition to boot. Response from District 150? The finger.

You know what? Cooperation isn’t cooperation when only one party is doing the cooperating. That’s called exploitation. And that’s what District 150 is doing to the City and the taxpayers.

They need to go. Hinton needs to go. Cahill needs to go. And, frankly, the school board needs to go.

Until people are elected/hired that will truly cooperate (partner, collaborate) with others — such as the City, the taxpayers, the parents and teachers — I don’t think they should get one thin dime from the City.

Furthermore, if things don’t turn around soon, I think the Mayor should appeal to the state for authority to take over the school district just like Mayor Daley did with the Chicago public schools over a decade ago. Peoria’s public school district is getting close to a state takeover anyway — why not keep it local?

Bradley University, City of Peoria

Zoning Commission approves Bradley institutional plan

10 Comments

Peoria’s Zoning Commission yesterday approved Bradley University’s institutional zoning plan… well, most of it, anyway. There were some properties that Bradley will be bringing back for approval at the April Zoning Commission meeting. Meanwhile, the bulk of it goes to the City Council on March 13. WHOI also reports this:

People who live in the neighborhood say the school should stay out.

“The city of Peoria needs to preserve and strengthen its older neighborhoods and putting Uplands property into Bradley’s institutional boundary will not help that preservation effort,” said Uplands neighborhood resident C.J. Summers.

Hey, I’ve heard of that guy somewhere…. Yes, my concern is over this part of Bradley’s plan:

Pi Phi houseYou see that dashed blue line that extends north across Main Street to encompass that property at the corner of Institute and Main? That’s the Pi Phi sorority house, and it is in the Uplands neighborhood. Bradley wants to include that in their institutional zone.

The Pi Phi house (1004 N. Institute) is owned by the sorority, and they want to move over near the other fraternities/sororities on Fredonia. So the plan is for Bradley to buy the Pi Phi house and do a kind of land-swap.

The Uplands Residential Association (URA) voted at their last meeting to oppose N-1 zoning for that property. That vote was reported to Bradley, and they removed the Pi Phi house from their request to the Zoning Commission, at least temporarily. So the vote at yesterday’s ZC meeting did not include the Pi Phi house.

Since the URA vote, Bradley has been working on a counteroffer, for lack of a better word. In return for the Uplands’ support for N-1 zoning, they would agree to restrict the uses of the property to offices or visiting faculty housing or some other mutually-agreeable use. The next URA meeting isn’t until March 8.

So, the way it stands is this. If the URA votes again to oppose N-1 zoning, Bradley has agreed to not try and add it to their institutional plan and will not buy the sorority property. If the URA votes to overturn their previous vote, then Bradley will go before the ZC in April to ask that the property be added to the N-1 boundaries.

Of course, the agenda for the ZC meeting yesterday said that the Pi Phi house was part of what they were voting on, which is why I went down there. It wasn’t until they got to that point on the agenda that they announced the Pi Phi house was removed from the request. But since I was already there, I went ahead and made my statement anyway. At least it’s on the record.

There are people on both sides of this issue in the Uplands. Some residents — and even Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken — think it would be a good thing for Pi Phi to get N-1 zoning because the university is more responsive to code violations and other disturbances than, say, absentee landlords. Also, Bradley’s offer to restrict the use of the property appeals to some who live close by because they believe it will make things more stable.

My concern is that I believe Bradley’s restricted use offer is a short-term concession. Once they get the N-1 zoning, it’s their foot in the door for further encroachment. It would set a bad precedent. We shouldn’t be inviting Bradley across Main in the false hope that it will bring stability to the neighborhood. Expanding institutions will not bring stability, but instability. After what happened on Maplewood, if Bradley comes into the Uplands, it will make our neighborhood at the fringes more susceptible to speculation and make it harder to attract single-family residents.

We can’t just look at the short term. We have to think about long-term strategies. To let this change go through unopposed I believe would indicate we were tacitly approving future Bradley expansion into the Uplands. I don’t think that’s a message we want to communicate. We have to think about what impact this decision will have 5-10-15 years down the road, not just its immediate impact.

Incidentally, the Pi Phi house is unlikely to be returned to single-family use. It’s been a sorority at least since 1944, according to Ed Boik in the City’s Planning and Growth department. It used to be zoned as such, but zoning code changes around 1979-1981 rezoned the property R-4 (single family residential), but grandfathered in the sorority as a non-conforming use. So, short of tearing down the structure and building a single-family home, this property will probably always be non-conforming. So the fight here isn’t so much about the particular use of this property as it is the perceived encroachment of Bradley and what that might portend for the future of the neighborhood.

UPDATE: The Journal Star’s article is here. Wow, I’m getting quoted all over the place! I made it clear at the meeting, and I want to say again that I did not speak to the commission on behalf of the Uplands; I spoke only for myself as a resident. The president of our neighborhood association, Bernie Goitein, is the Uplands’ official spokesperson.

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

Schierer drops out of council race

2 Comments

Charles SchiererI just got this e-mail from Brad Carter:

I just left the East Bluff candidates forum and Dan Gillette was there because Charles Schierer dropped out. He was notified by PJStar.com.

Gillette, of course, finished 11th in the primary, so apparently with the departure of Schierer, he moves up to the general election. The Journal Star quotes Schierer as saying:

“Being in ninth and in looking at the numbers, I think there are some significant hurdles in getting to the top five,” Schierer said. “That being the case, I don’t want to be mucking it up for the other folks. I think I am a realist. It’s probably best to step aside. This wasn’t my time.”

In contrast, Dan Irving called me the day after the primary and said he’s definitely not throwing in the towel — despite coming in eighth with only 27 more votes than Schierer. Instead, he’s going to step up his campaigning and work all the harder to get his name and message out. I found his energy and optimism inspiring, and it made me rethink my initial pessimism about some of the election results.

Well, that saves me a call to Brentwood, Missouri, to find out more about Schierer’s term as alderman there.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 considering demolition of Prospect property

21 Comments

Peoria Public Schools logoIt seems the school district hasn’t been keeping at least one of its latest property acquisitions up to code, and they’re proposing the most expensive solution to that problem, of course.

District 150 paid $98,000 — about $38,000 more than its fair market value — for the house at 2126 N. Prospect Rd. in April 2006 — part of a thwarted attempt to put a new grade school for the Woodruff attendance area in Glen Oak Park. That house is not up to code because of a bad roof and peeling paint. Rather than paint the garage and put a new $4,000 roof on the house, naturally they’re talking about demolishing it, according to a report at PJStar.com:

District 150 is considering tearing down a house on Prospect Road because of pending code violations, district officials confirmed Wednesday.

Demolishing the house will easily cost twice as much as fixing it, to say nothing of the equity they will lose. And when I say “they,” I of course mean “we,” the taxpayers. You gotta hand it to the school board — they really have a knack when it comes to dreaming up ways to waste our money.

It’s almost like they had a brainstorming session where they asked, “What would be the most irresponsible, ridiculous, and provocative thing we could do with the properties we acquired prematurely and cannot now use?” And after much discussion, the answer was clearly, “leave them in a state of disrepair until the city tries to fine us for code violations, then throw good money after bad by demolishing them.”

Bravo. For your next act, how about taking a bunch of taxpayer money and simply setting it on fire in the parking lot?

UPDATE: Clare Jellick’s full article appears in today’s Journal Star. It includes this information from the previous owner of the home:

Former homeowner Wilbur Rose said the roof was starting to go when he owned it, but it has deteriorated rapidly since then. He drives by it sometimes and says it’s now an eyesore.

“There was one spot going when I left and now it looks like there’s three huge spots where the wind and stuff has blown it away. It has gotten 300 percent worse than when I was there,” Rose said.

Why hasn’t the district put all of its Prospect road property back on the market yet?

Blogosphere, City of Pekin

Family of Pekin blogger threatened

10 Comments

Someone figured out the real identity of a popular pseudonymous blogger and left a threatening note on the door of his home. “Knight in Dragonland,” a Richwoods High School graduate (“Knight”) now residing in Pekin (“Dragonland”), blogs about Pekin politics just like I blog about Peoria politics. But someone is trying to silence Knight through threats and intimidation:

Today someone placed a handwritten threat addressed to “knightindragonland” on my screen door while my wife was home with our baby girl…. Paraphrasing, it told me to shut my mouth. I don’t remember the exact words and the note is now in the hands of the Pekin police.

I’m not exactly sure what I’m supposed to keep quiet about. I’ve opened my big mouth on quite a few topics, and my stalker wasn’t explicit about what he/she found offensive. This lovely sheet of paper also listed my parent’s address in Peoria with the phrase “do you recognize this?” after it.

The implied threat was clear … I know who you are, I know where you live, I know where your parents live, and you better shut your mouth.

To his credit, Knight has not been cowed by the malicious little dirtbag who’s threatened his family. He’s come out fighting, filing a police report and letting everyone know about the threat. He will most likely “come out” and reveal his identity soon, once he gives his employer a heads-up.

Keep up the good work, Knight. Don’t be bullied. Keep blogging.

City of Peoria, Peoria Park District

Historic Preservation Commission makes the right decision

6 Comments

Park District LogoThe Journal Star is reporting tonight that Peoria’s Historic Preservation Commission is not in favor of designating Glen Oak Park as an historic landmark, but is willing to consider landmarking some individual structures, such as the pavilion.

That’s a reasonable approach. Designating the whole park as a landmark would be overreaching, in my opinion, and would challenge the sovereignty of the Peoria Park District. It would almost certainly have ended up in litigation, needlessly draining taxpayer dollars as the city and park district played tug-of-war.

That said, the park district does need to do a better job of maintaining Glen Oak Park, as well as the other parks under its stewardship. That’s the underlying reason this is being brought before the historic preservation commission in the first place. The parapet has been falling apart for years, and the foot bridge has also been undergoing “demolition by neglect,” to name two very visible examples. There seems to be no end to the resources the park district can dole out for new projects like the zoo expansion and rail-to-trail conversion attempt. Some of those resources would be better used maintaining what they already have.

UPDATE: Here’s Jennifer Davis’s full article from Thursday’s Journal Star. I was interested to read this statement: “Until [March 28], the park remains as if it was landmarked, which park officials protested because it stalls their plans to remove the old stone fort by the lagoon.” It seems their lack of maintenance over the years has caused the parapet to deteriorate to a point that it would cost over $800,000 to fix it, according to the one bid they received.

I don’t know what they’re so worried about. If the commission finds that it’s not an historic structure, they’ll be able to proceed with removing it; if it does get designated an historic structure, I would imagine it would make it eligible for grant money that could be used to repair it.

Glen Oak CannonFoot Bridge