All posts by C. J. Summers

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

Restaurant Review: Carnegie’s 501 isn’t the Carnegie’s you remember

Remember going to Carnegie’s in the Hotel Pere Marquette? The overstuffed chairs, the fine linen. The heavy drapes pulled back to reveal each booth. The well-dressed waiter who never let your water glass get less than half-full. The silver dome plate covers that were all lifted in unison to reveal everyone’s meal at once. The quiet, elegant atmosphere and slow, relaxed pace perfectly conducive for dining and conversing. The beautiful chandeliers. The grand piano providing soft dinner music. The sorbet between each course to cleanse your palate. The dessert display. The chocolate-covered strawberries that came with the bill. Remember that?

Well, that’s all it is now: a memory.

The new Carnegie’s 501 is your average hotel restaurant. Nothing special. The decor has been changed dramatically — gone are the drapes, the piano, the overstuffed chairs. Added: a salad bar and a couple of noisy beverage machines. My wife and I were fortunate enough to be seated next to the buzzing coffee and juice bar. Nothing reminds you that you’re eating in a hotel better than a sound that makes you feel like you’re in a hallway near the ice machine.

Our waitress, dressed in a half-tucked gray shirt with black apron and hairnet, looked as if she doubled as a short order cook when she wasn’t on the floor waiting tables. Her grammar could use some work (Question: “Is Jerry still managing here?” Answer: “Not no more”), but to her credit, she was pleasant and attentive.

We were seated promptly at a table for two with a black tablecloth and white linen napkins. We were given one-page menus in clear-plastic page holders. There was a wide selection; you could get a filet mignon or meatloaf, for instance — two beef dishes at opposite ends of the culinary spectrum. I got the filet; my wife got the ribeye. We both ordered the dinner salad with raspberry vinegrette dressing and baked potatoes with butter.

I will say this for Carnegie’s 501: the steaks were cooked to perfection and delicious. The salad was simple (iceberg and romaine, cucumber and tomato slices), but crisp and fresh. The dressing was thicker than one might expect from a vinegrette, but sweet and tangy. The potato was warm and probably could have been baked a bit longer. Even though we asked only for butter, we were given butter and sour cream.

Surprisingly, we didn’t receive any rolls. We asked our server if the meal came with bread or rolls, to which she promptly replied, “Sure, I can get you some,” then hopped over to the salad bar and grabbed a few pieces of sourdough bread and a handful of butter pats, put them on a plate, and served them to us. The rolls were cold — another departure from the old days of Carnegie’s when they would serve you a variety of hot rolls with chilled, molded pats of butter.

Since it was our anniversary, we did receive a complimentary dessert. That was a nice touch. We both got the cheesecake with strawberries. It was served in the most unusual way — in a humongous martini glass. The slice of cheesecake was standing on end, surrounded by a mixture of strawberries and melted ice cream.

Carnegie’s 501 really isn’t bad for what it is — a hotel restaurant. Unfortunately, anyone who’s lived in Peoria long enough to have experienced the old Carnegie’s will be hard-pressed not to have high expectations based on previous experience. So, be forewarned, despite the similar name, it’s not Carnegie’s anymore. It’s Carnegie’s 501 — good food, casual atmosphere, laid-back service, for about the same price as the old Carnegie’s.

Cardinals: NLDS Champions

Cardinals LogoBases-loaded jams, suicide squeeze, timely double-plays — it was an exciting game all the way around. And of course, for a Cardinal fan like myself, the ending couldn’t have been any sweeter — the third straight NLDS win for the redbirds.

It’s on to Shea Stadium Wednesday night for Game 1 of the National League Championship Series. Can the Cardinals pull another upset and knock off the Mets? It wouldn’t be the first time they surprised their critics.

On a personal note…

A few personal tidbits:

Today my wife and I are celebrating our 12th wedding anniversary. On this day in 1994, we vowed to love, honor, and cherish each other until death do we part, and we are no less committed to each other today. I’d like to say we’re going to do something exciting to celebrate, but we have three kids, so, maybe if we’re lucky we’ll get to go out to dinner by ourselves for an hour.

I’m taking this week off from work to get some projects done around the house. With the electricity rate hike looming, I suddenly have a new motivation to insulate my attic. So that’s the biggest project I have on tap. Still, it will be nice having some time off work; I haven’t taken a vacation week since my son was born, about a year and a half ago.

On Friday I logged onto the city’s website to see the agenda for this Tuesday, as I usually do. As I was scanning down the consent agenda, I got a big surprise — I’m on it! Several months ago, I applied to be a part of the Heart of Peoria Commission at the suggestion of my city council representative. Shortly after that, they put a moratorium on commission appointments while Van Auken, Sandberg, and Morris did a thorough review of all the commissions. Sometime in the past few weeks, that moratorium was lifted and the mayor began making appointments again, and I’m being recommended for appointment to the HOP Commission. I have to admit, I’m pretty excited about it. It’s no secret that I’m a die-hard fan of new urbanism in general and the Heart of Peoria Plan specifically. This is an opportunity for me to make a real contribution to the implementation of the plan. There’s only so much you can do with a blog.

Finally, I’m hoping once again that the Cardinals can beat the Padres tonight behind Cy Young Award winner Chris Carpenter and advance to the NLCS to face the Mets. I’ll be honest, I’m very hopeful that the Cards can knock off the Padres, but I’m not very hopeful that they can beat the Mets. Of course, I want them to make it to the World Series, but realistically, the Mets this year will be awfully hard to beat. They can’t afford to have Chris Duncan miss a routine fly ball in left field against the Mets. Go Cardinals!

Go Cardinals!

Cardinals LogoIn a couple of hours, the Cardinals will be playing Game 3 of the NLDS against the San Diego Padres at home in St. Louis. Of course, I’m hoping for another sweep, just like the Cardinals have done the last couple of post-season series against the Padres.

I have one beef with the game today — it’s on ESPN2. There are three baseball games being played today, and two of them are on FOX (that station I get). The one I really want to watch is on ESPN2 (not even ESPN — it’s on ESPN2! ESPN has college football). Just another reason to hate the wild-card system that forces this extra round of playoffs that doesn’t bring in enough advertising dollars to put all the games on broadcast television — all so a second-place team can get a second-chance at the post-season.

LaHood remark ignores gerrymandering

Rep. Ray LaHood was on 1470 WMBD-AM this morning explaining and defending his position in support of House Speaker Dennis Hastert and in favor of reforming the page system. Most of that conversation was nothing new, but one passing remark LaHood made really irritated me. I don’t have an exact quote, but it was pretty close to this: “If my constituents feel I’m doing a bad job, there’s a referendum coming up in 32 days [Nov. 7] and they can vote me out of office.”

To a certain extent, that’s true. If he really ticked off enough people, they probably would kick him out of office. But the problem is that our congressional districts are drawn in such a way that instead of the voters choosing the representatives, the representatives choose their voters. It’s called gerrymandering, and it looks like this:

IL Congressional Districts

Notice especially the 17th district (in purple) along the western border of the state. Have you ever seen anything so ridiculous? It’s so egregious, The Economist recognized it as “the champion gerrymandering” of the whole country. It essentially takes Democratic voters out of the 18th district and puts them in the 17th district, helping the 17th district stay Democratic and the 18th district stay Republican. Lane Evans represents the 17th district; LaHood represents the 18th district.

In fairness, Evans and LaHood aren’t personally responsible for this inequity; they’re only the beneficiaries. The congressional districts are drawn (or, more accurately, manipulated) at the state level. But there is state legislation proposed that would change the way districts are drawn.

House Bill 3699, “The Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Act,” was proposed on March 10, 2005, by Republican Lee Daniels and would set up a redistricting plan similar to Iowa’s redistricting process, “where the non-partisan Legislative Research Unit draws the maps and writes the legislation with the advice of a 5-member appointed commission” (FairVote.org, the source of this explanation of the bill, has a wealth of information on gerrymandering in general, and Illinois’ pending legislation in particular).

I called Schock’s office to find out his views on this legislation, but was unable to get an immediate answer. Since the legislation was referred to the Rules Committee immediately after it was introduced, there hasn’t been any floor debate on it yet. It’s likely that he’s in favor of a fairer redistricting process, although he probably won’t be able to comment on HB3699 specifically.

If we want to see real accountability to the voters in this state, the gerrymandering has to stop. We should be writing to our representatives and demanding redistricting reform.

UPDATE: I received a call back from Rep. Schock’s office and he has expressed support for HB3699 or a similar bill that would reform the state’s redistricting process. HB3699 was referred to the Rules Committee by Speaker of the House Mike Madigan, and according to Schock’s office, Madigan is the one who has the power to bring it out of committee. It’s been in the Rules Committee since March 2005.

Well, then I called Rep. Daniels’ office (Elmhurst, IL) to find out some more information about the status of the bill. His office confirmed that Speaker Madigan had referred it to the Rules Committee and that the bill is dead. Since Daniels is retiring this year, he won’t be back next legislative session to reintroduce the bill. So, it needs a new sponsor.

I called Rep. Schock’s office to request that he (should he be reelected) sponsor this or similar legislation. (I say “similar legislation” because I’m not tied to Daniels’ particular plan; there’s more than one way to reform the process. The important thing is to ensure the redistricting process is indeed reformed so that regions, not political loyalties, are represented.) His staff will confer with him on it and let me know. I’ll let you know what I find out.

LaHood loses marbles

Ray LaHoodFrom the Associated Press via ABC News:

LaHood said Wednesday he was standing by Hastert and predicted his fellow House Republicans would, too. It’s not the speaker who should go, LaHood said, but the “antiquated” page system that brings 15- and 16-year-olds to the Capitol and has resulted in scandals in the past.

“Some members betray their trust by taking advantage of them. We should not subject young men and women to this kind of activity, this kind of vulnerability,” LaHood said in a CNN interview. He said the program should be suspended, at least until its flaws can be corrected.

Isn’t that like saying, “Johnson up on the fourth floor is a sexual pervert; he does nothing but sexually harrass the young women who work here. Obviously the only course of action is to fire the young women he’s been harrassing — for their protection”?

As far as I’m concerned, LaHood has completely lost his marbles. There’s nothing antiquated about the page system. It’s a simple co-op program similar to the kind a lot of businesses provide to give high school and college students some job experience.

The problem is with the perverts in Congress, and the leaders who cover for them. If LaHood really wants to be visionary in solving the problem, he should advocate suspending Congress “until its flaws can be corrected.”

This is a no-brainer, folks. Condemn Foley, work on passing real ethics reform, and shut up. Instead, LaHood has chosen to defend Hastert, work on abolishing the victims, and talk about it on national TV. What a disgrace and an embarrassment to his congressional district.

District 150 & the Public Building Commission, Part 2

In my last post, I looked at quotes by Senator George Shadid and District 150 Treasurer Guy Cahill regarding Senate Bill 2477, a bill that would allow the school district to borrow money to build new schools through the Public Building Commission (PBC) without having to get approval from voters through a referendum. In other words, a bill that will allow the school district to pick your pocket for their building program, a program that is questionable at best.

The Governor vetoed the bill, but Shadid has announced his intention to try to override it. Does he have enough votes? It looks very possible: A three-fifths vote is needed to override a veto; that means 36 senators and 71 representatives. Senate Bill 2477 passed overwhelmingly with 43 ayes (9 nays) in the Senate and 89 ayes (25 nays) in the House. So, if all those people felt strongly enough about the original form of this bill, they could easily override the Governor’s veto.

But why are so many senators and representatives in favor of this bill? Maybe it has something to do with the way it was presented. I’ve been reading transcripts of the floor debate in the Senate and House (did you know these are available on-line?), and it’s been a real eye-opener.

Let’s start with Senator Shadid in the Senate. He had this to say:

[T]hey [the school board] are really in dire — dire straits because they can’t get a referendum passed. They have a sixty-percent minority student population and this would be very, very beneficial and really well — well needed. I mean, we need this in our city.

They’re in dire straits? We need this in Peoria? They can’t get a referendum passed?

He was challenged on that last statement by Senator Burzynski (R-35th Dist.) who asked, “when was the last time they offered a referendum to the people?” Senator Shadid:

I have to tell you, they — they’ve not had a referendum on the — for the last ten years that I’m aware of. I can only tell you that when I tried to build a county jail, we had three referendums that failed and we finally had to go to the public building commission in 1985 to get a jail built that was to replace the jail that was a hundred and twenty-five years old.

Burzynski rejoined, “what I recall in the discussion in committee is the fact that it’s been close to thirty years since they tried to pass a referendum.”

So, Shadid’s argument is, as I understand it, thus: Since it was so difficult twenty-one years ago to pass a referendum to build a jail, obviously it will be impossible now to get a referendum passed to build new schools. It’s not even worth trying to get the money that way — we need to circumvent the voters just like we did to get the jail built.

Yet, only six years ago, the Journal Star reported that “Illinois voters approve[d] most school bond issues” (3/23/2000): “Seven of the 10 area schools that asked for more money, got it. Now they’ll be able to construct new buildings, renovate old ones or just pay bills.” None of these bond issues were in the City of Peoria, but they were close — as close as Dunlap, to give just one example. It just goes to show that when a school board makes a good case for increased funding, it is possible to get a referendum passed, without picking voters’ pockets.

Okay, onto our newest representative in Springfield, Mr. Aaron Schock, who took to the floor of the House to speak in favor of this bill:

I rise in support of Senate Bill 2477 not only as the Representative from Peoria, but also the past president of the Peoria School System. This is a piece of legislation that is not only supported by our school board, but also our entire city council.

Wait, it is? Did I miss that meeting? Does anyone remember the “entire city council” expressing their support for this bill? Can Schock provide any evidence to support this statement? Of course, in Springfield there’s no one to dispute his assertions, so as far as the Illinois House is concerned, Peoria’s entire city council supports this bill. Schock continues:

And I certainly hope that we can have overwhelming, if not unanimous, support from this General Assembly. This really gives local control to our school board and to the Public Building Commission in Peoria. Right now, our Public Building Commission already has the authority to build libraries, to build prisons and jails, and we’re simply asking for that same authority be given back to our school system, which it has had for many years. All of the schools in our district in the recent history that have been built have been done so using the Public Building Commission.

And I believe that’s the very reason they took the power to bond for school construction away from the PBC, isn’t it? And what does he mean by “this really gives local control to our school board…”? Since when is getting approval from taxpayers in your own school district not considered a local decision? I’m guessing by “local control,” he means simply “control.” It takes control away from the voters and gives it to the school board. Back to Schock:

We have more inadequately housed students, according to state standards, more inadequately housed students in Peoria than any other school district in the state. I think it’s a shame right now that our Public Building Commission has the authority to house prisoners and jail inmates and give them adequate standards but we’re not giving that same authority to school children in our state. So, this only seems like common sense. I wanna thank Majority Leader Currie for her work on this Bill. It’s a commonsense piece of legislation, something that’s gonna really help Peoria. And I wanna say thank you to her for her willingness to take this cause on for the betterment of school children in Peoria. I urge a “yes” vote.

The common theme between Shadid and Schock is that our students in Peoria are “inadequately housed” according to state standards. You know what that standard is? Any students who are going to school in a building that is more than 67 years old are considered “inadequately housed.” That’s it. So, Schock is inadvertently right when he says, “this only seems like common sense.” Indeed. It’s isn’t really commonsense legislation, it only seems that way because of the way it has been presented.

There is more in the transcript that I would love to cover, and maybe I will in the future, but for now I want to point out one more thing. The main sponsor of this bill in the Illinois House was not Schock, but Barbara Flynn Currie (D-25th District). When she introduced the bill, she said, “This measure has the strong support of Peoria School District #150. I know of no opposition.”

No kidding. Who in Peoria would think to call Barbara Flynn Currie to express their opposition to this bill? But it does bring up a good point. Perhaps we should start writing to the entire Illinois General Assembly to express our opposition to this bill. And perhaps someone on the council (Mr. Spears?) could let the legislature know that the city council has never expressed their support for this bill. I’m sure the School Board won’t mind the city setting the record straight since they have made it perfectly clear they don’t value the city’s cooperation anyway.

Here’s where you can find a list of all the Representatives (http://www.ilga.gov/house/) and Senators (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/). Just tell them you want no taxation without representation, so please uphold the Governor’s veto of Senate Bill 2477.

District 150 & the Public Building Commission, Part 1

Do you think District 150 should be allowed to raise your taxes without a referendum?

If not, you’ll want to pay attention to this story. It’s not online, unfortunately, so here’s a lengthy quote from Clare Jellick’s story in the 10/3/2006 Journal Star titled, “Senator fighting Governor’s veto,” subhead, “Shadid supports bill for school construction”:

PEORIA — State Sen. George Shadid wants to override the Governor’s amendatory veto of a bill that benefits District 150, the senator said Monday.

The bill, originally sponsored by Shadid, allows the district to ask the Peoria Public Building Commission to issue bonds for school construction. The district plans to repay the bonds by restructuring its property tax levy, but the governor doesn’t want this method used without voter approval.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich considers this funding structure as raising taxes; District 150 does not, and Shadid is prepared to fight against the veto.

“(The School Board) is elected by the people in this community, so I’m going to take their word for it that they’re not going to raise taxes,” said Shadid, who initially supported the governor’s proposed changes.

The debate is over what’s considered raising taxes. The district intends to replace old bonds with new bonds, meaning that the tax rate will stay the same, but people will be paying the rate longer. If the district issued no new bonds, the tax rate would drop gradually starting next year.

The old bonds would be paid off completely by 2012. The district is proposing that the rate continue until 2015 at the earliest and 2020 at the latest.

“Could (taxpayers) enjoy a tax reduction without this (legislation)? The answer is clearly yes, but the school district clearly needs to build, and it needs to borrow to do it,” district treasurer Guy Cahill said Monday.

The School Board passed a resolution Monday to cap the tax rate, which is enough assurance for Shadid. He intends to use this during the fall veto session to make his case for the override.

“I feel comfortable with them giving me this resolution that they’re not going to raise the rate,” Shadid said.

[The Governor still stands by his amendatory veto.]

The soonest the amendment could be considered is November. A majority vote in both houses is needed to accept the change. A super-majority (three-fifths vote) in both houses would override Blagojevich’s veto and make the original version of the bill law.

A couple of comments are in order here. First, the school board passed a resolution saying they would cap the tax rate, and that’s enough assurance for Shadid that they won’t raise taxes. There are two obvious problems with this:

  1. The school board changes over time; just because this school board promises to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be overridden by a later board. And, of course, there’s nothing preventing this school board from reneging, either.
  2. Whether or not they promised a rate cap completely misses the point. The tax rate is supposed to go down starting next year. If it doesn’t, then the school board is clearly raising our taxes; Cahill even admitted it. The point is that tax increases such as this should be approved by the voters — you know, the ones who have to pay the taxes.

Secondly, Cahill claims “the school district clearly needs to build.” Oh? Kind of like they “clearly” needed to close Blaine-Sumner Middle School (built in 1927) because the building was so decrepit, yet once it was closed they were somehow miraculously able to immediately rehabilitate it for use as district offices, even adding air conditioning? If this was one of the worst (and since it was one of the first schools to be closed, we can only assume it was), then I’d say their schools aren’t in as bad of shape as we’ve been led to believe.

No, it’s not at all clear that the district needs to build. It’s crystal clear that they want to build. The fact that the district is trying to find a way around the voters only shows they are so certain the public won’t buy it, they’re not even going to attempt a referendum. Rather than go through the difficult work of proving their “need” for new buildings and the funding for them, then pursuading the public to pass a referendum, they’d rather pick taxpayers’ pockets.

And that’s what Senate Bill 2477, without the Governor’s amendatory veto, will allow them to do: pick our pockets. But why has the Illinois General Assembly been in favor of this bill in the first place? And what are the odds they’ll be able to override the Governor’s veto? I’ll explore some possible answers in my next post.

K’s Merchandise is no more

The Journal Star reports that K’s Merchandise is going out of business — the whole chain. Liquidation sale starts Thursday.

K’s is practically right next to the Kellar Branch. Wouldn’t it be nice if a rail-served business (light industry, warehouse) moved into that property? Oh, wait, we can’t try to attract that kind of business because we want to take the rail line out and put in a bike path. Oh well. Maybe the car dealership next door will buy it.

More false hope from District 150?

Clare Jellick reports in the Journal Star today:

District 150 Superintendent Ken Hinton won’t continue buying properties near Glen Oak Park until he has time to talk to neighborhood groups and City Council members, he said Monday.

Hinton told the School Board Monday that he had originally intended to bring forth a recommendation at that meeting, but “for now that’s not going to take place.”

“I just want to talk to (people) and let them know where we are and what we’re thinking,” Hinton said after Monday’s meeting.

The implication is that Hinton is still trying to work out a compromise with the city and East Bluff neighbors. But if the last two counterproposals he offered the city are any indication, it’s likely this will simply be another attempt to pursuade everyone that putting the school next to a park is the best idea in education since the Dewey Decimal System.

But I’ll try to suppress my suspicion until I hear “where [they] are and what [they’re] thinking.” Maybe he’ll surprise us all.