All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
City Council, Peoria Journal Star

Journal Star selectively hears Sandberg

1 Comment

The Journal Star Editorial Board had some bitter words for Councilman Sandberg in today’s paper, saying he “found a basketful of nits to pick” regarding the museum’s request for more money from the city.  They focused in on Sandberg’s contention that TIFs are siphoning money from basic services, and defended TIFs in a paragraph that looked like a transcript of Councilwoman Van Auken’s statements from Tuesday night’s meeting.

But they also say in their editorial, “The subsurface parking was recommended by the Heart of Peoria Commission.”  Now anyone who actually watched the council meeting Tuesday night would know that Sandberg spent a considerable amount of time debunking that  misconception.  He interrogated the museum and Caterpillar representatives, and they both admitted in plain language that the Heart of Peoria Commission never recommended subsurface parking — in fact, they recommended having no parking at all, except for street parking, because the block is surrounded by public parking.

So how did the Journal Star hear Gary’s comments about TIFs (which were brief) and miss his comments on parking (which were extensive)?  I guess they’re just more interested in using Sandberg as a punching bag than getting their facts straight.

Peoria County, Peoria Disposal Company

Peoria County poised to deny PDC expansion

1 Comment

The Peoria County Board took an “initial vote” on the PDC landfill expansion request tonight, and unless some board members change their mind between now and May 3 when they take the final vote, it looks like the application will go down to defeat.

I wasn’t able to attend, but WEEK-TV was there and offered this report on this evening’s news.

The county board can only evaluate the site application based on nine criteria (listed here verbatim from the county’s website):

  1. The facility meets the needs of the area it is intended to serve;
  2. Public health, safety and welfare are protected in the facility design and location;
  3. Care has been taken to minimize the incompatibility of the facility with the character of the surrounding area and property values;
  4. The facility is outside the boundary of the 100-year flood plain;
  5. The facility operating plans minimize the danger to the surrounding area from fire, spills or other operational accidents;
  6. The traffic patterns to and from the facility minimize the impact on existing traffic flow;
  7. An emergency response plan for the facility has been developed to include notification, containment and evacuation procedures in case of an accidental release.
  8. Groundwater protection provisions have been met; and
  9. The facility is consistent with the County’s solid waste management plan.

In their “initial vote” tonight — WEEK called it a “dress rehearsal” — the board approved only seven of the nine. The two they didn’t approve? Numbers 2 & 3 above — the same reasons I was against the application.

Expect to see some heavy lobbying by the Journal Star, Peoria Pundit, and of course PDC over the next few weeks as they try to persuade the board that having a hazardous waste dump next door really won’t affect property values or endanger our health. Maybe they can also try convincing us that pigs can fly.

I’ll be hoping the vote on May 3 is the same as the vote tonight. The board made the right decision.

UPDATE (4/7/06): WMBD-AM Radio and the Journal Star this morning report that the county board voted down three of the criteria — the two WEEK mentioned as well as number 1 above (in other words, they voted the expansion is not needed to accommodate area waste). The vote was 10-7.

Peoria County, Peoria Disposal Company, Uncategorized

Landfill expansion: Common sense says “no”

3 Comments

I have refrained from commenting on this topic because I had high hopes of wading through the public hearing transcripts, site application, letters recommending passage/denial, etc., etc. But, alas, I simply don’t have the time to do that.

But there are some things I know about the landfill that I don’t need to read 5,000 pages to discover: it’s just outside the city close to residential neighborhoods, it sits over an aquifer that supplies most of our drinking water (or to be precise, “sands hydrolically connected to the San Koty aquifer), and it has hazardous waste buried in it including heavy metals like lead and mercury.

Based on those facts, plus things I’ve read on both sides of the issue (Journal Star, Bill Dennis, PDC, Families Against Toxic Waste, etc.), I think the common sense position is to vote this down. I’m primarily opposed to its placement, not the mere existence of it.

But there is one other thing I’m opposed to, and that’s the fact that they receive most of their hazardous waste from outside this area. Proponents of the hazardous waste landfill like to throw the n-word (NIMBY) at opponents, as if we Peorians are just creating all this hazardous waste and want someone else to take it off our hands.

In reality, the exact opposite is the case.

We’ve been taking on the toxic waste of ten other NIMBY states. 84% of the hazardous waste PDC collects is from outside of Peoria. I think we’ve been more than generous by having all that filth in our “backyards” these past 15 years. It’s time for other cities and states to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own hazardous waste.

There’s plenty of legal justification for voting this project down based on risk to health and safety and the adverse impact it would have on property values. The county board should deny PDC’s request for expansion.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan, Museum Block, Uncategorized

Museum Square: Boondoggle in the Making, Part IV

I’ve pulled no punches in my criticism of the Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) in the past, especially as it relates to Museum Square. I still think they dropped the ball in a big way when they didn’t make any recommendation for or against the site plan, despite its obvious non-conformity with the Heart of Peoria Plan, which the council adopted “in principle.”

But the city council is not without culpability for that failure. I felt a little uncomfortable last night listening to one council member use the HOPC’s failure as an scapegoat for letting this project proceed unhindered.

The HOPC is not an elected body. It’s appointed by the mayor. They don’t make binding decisions, but merely recommendations. The fact that the HOPC couldn’t produce a recommendation should have been a sign that there were problems within the commission that were preventing them from reaching consensus. At best, it should have been a sign that the site plan was controversial. And the council — our elected representatives — should have stepped up to the plate and shown some leadership on that issue.

It’s not like there’s no precedent for the council to take action against the recommendation of a commission. The Railroad Commission recommended preserving the Kellar Branch for competitive rail service, but the council overruled them and approved turning a half-million-dollar asset into a bike path.

The buck stops at the council. Like it or not, regardless of what the commissions recommend or don’t recommend, the council is responsible for the decisions. And the decision to approve this site plan for the Sears block was a poor one.

Why? As I said earlier, the council adopted “in principle” the Heart of Peoria Plan. If that’s going to mean anything, it needs to apply to every developer, not just developers who don’t have Caterpillar backing. And it should apply to every project — especially a project on the “crown jewel” of downtown Peoria.

This museum project doesn’t conform in any way to the Heart of Peoria Plan:

  • The HOP Plan called for high-density development with large buildings, making optimal use of the whole block and having an urban character. The site plan is low-density; roughly two-thirds of the block will be open space with buildings and landscape that will look suburban in character.
  • The HOP Plan called for mixed-use with a residential component to make it a true 24/7 block. The site plan includes a museum, a visitor center, and some small retail that faces Water Street — all things that will close in the evening, leaving the block dead at night.
  • The HOP Plan called for building designs and materials that will blend with the surrounding architecture. The surrounding architecture is traditional, with brick and stone façades. The museum and visitor center designs are modern, with steel and glass façades.
  • While additional parking was envisioned by the HOP Plan for a high-density design for this block, the low-density site plan design doesn’t warrant additional parking since surrounding parking areas are sufficient.

The worst part is, the council had a chance to challenge this site plan, even as late as Tuesday night. Nothing has been built yet. These buildings are still just on paper. I know there’s expense that goes into designing and engineering those drawings, but it’s nothing compared to the cost of actually building the structures.

Unfortunately, since the council won’t stand up to Cat and has a handy scapegoat in the HOPC, it looks like we’ll be stuck with yet another boondoggle.

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block, Uncategorized

Museum Square: Boondoggle in the Making, Part III

2 Comments

Of course, the truth of the matter is that this underground parking deck isn’t for the Central Illinois Regional Museum at all — it’s for Caterpillar’s visitor center. As councilman Sandberg pointed out, Cat originally wanted an above-ground [underground] parking deck built on their portion of the Sears block and paid for with federal dollars. But they found out that federal rules prohibit the use of those funds for [public] parking decks on private property. Furthermore, the Heart of Peoria Commission strongly recommended there not be any surface parking on the site. So Cat, rather than doing away with the parking, now decides to put the deck underground on the public half of the property and use property tax dollars (through the TIF) to pay for it.

The rest of the council is, of course, perfectly okay with that. They had all kinds of justifications for it. Councilwoman Van Auken said that removing the cap on the TIF wouldn’t take money away from essential services like fire station staffing. Bill Dennis has the best response to that spurious argument.

But the most embarrassing justification was the “we- have- to- approve- this- plan- or- Cat- will- move- their- headquarters- out- of- Peoria” reason. To hear Chuck Grayeb talk, for instance, you’d think Cat was poised to pull up stakes and move out of town any second, and that Peorians should be sacrificing their virgin daughters on an altar outside Cat headquarters and paying tribute money to keep them here.

Let’s face it — Caterpillar is a very large employer and has been very generous to Peoria civic projects and charities. I’m all for giving credit where credit is due. But that doesn’t mean our council should just rubber stamp every Caterpillar request. To do so makes the council a mere figurehead government that represents Cat and not Peoria residents.

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Museum Square: Boondoggle in the Making, Part II

3 Comments

For further proof that this museum will be a bust, we need only turn to the parking lot debacle, which consumed most of the deliberations last night. The council voted to give more money to the Museum Square project (by removing the TIF cap) so that an unwarranted and expensive parking garage could be added.

Yes, the 75+ street spaces plus the parking decks across the street to the northwest plus the surface lot to the southeast are just not enough parking according to the council and Museum Collaborative. Why? On-site parking is “part of the success factor for the facilities being built there,” said one of the presenters. “This is Peoria,” councilwoman Van Auken reminded us, as if we all just arrived here from outer space. People aren’t going to walk a block to the museum because “we live in a northern climate” and the weather isn’t always good.

With all due respect, that’s horse hockey. Ever been to a Bradley game? A symphony concert? A Chiefs game? Steamboat Days? Skyconcert? I would submit that Peorians park on the street and in surrounding parking decks and surface lots for these and a host of other downtown activities — in all kinds of weather. People are more than willing to park a block or two away and walk if there’s something worth walking to. If the parking deck proponents believe that people won’t walk across the street to see our beautiful, new, state-of-the-art museum, then why are we building it at all?

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan, Museum Block

Museum Square: Boondoggle in the Making, Part I

1 Comment

Let’s play the old game, “Who Am I?”

  • I will be a regional draw
  • I will revive downtown
  • I will raise a lot of tax revenue
  • I will be self-supporting

Who am I? If you guessed Museum Square, you’re correct. And if you guessed the Civic Center, you’re also correct. Yes, the promises are remarkably similar. Also remarkably similar: the prospect that this project will not be self-supporting and will need ongoing help from the city to keep it afloat.

Councilmen Manning and Jacob ran the numbers, and this project has even less of a chance of being profitable than the water company buyout would have been in its proposed first year. They convinced the council to change the language of the redevelopment agreement amendment to say the museum collaborative will not ask for any more money from the city.

I applaud their effort, but realistically, everyone knows the museum is going to come back for more money around 2010. And what’s the city going to say? “No, we’ll let the museum close down and have a big vacant building on the Sears block again”? Not hardly. No, we’ll be subsidizing this thing for many years to come. And it started last night with the vote to give them more TIF (Tax Increment Financing) money.

Peoria Public Schools

King Matheson suffers the little people’s queries

4 Comments

The Journal Star had an interesting article today on how some ticked-off east bluff residents cornered Sean Matheson after the school board meeting last night. I just want to make a couple of quick comments:

Matheson said there isn’t enough space to build a new school on the Glen Oak site. In order to have enough room, more properties would have been impacted.

Prove it. As I stated earlier, the school district is not obligated to build on 15 acres, or even 10 acres. In fact, there is no minimum acreage requirement in the State of Illinois. What’s the justification for believing “there isn’t enough space” on the current Glen Oak School site?

Matheson said the location for the new school is final, but the programs that go into it are not. He encouraged the residents to be part of the process to design the school, which will take place in the coming months.

“Remember, we’ve made one decision, and I understand that decision is controversial, but there are many other decisions that need to be made,” he told the group of residents.

I was trying to figure out a word for this, and I think Bill Dennis hit it on the head: arrogance. Sure, they’ve just made one little decision: the decision to throw 14 long-time homeowners and 7 renters out of their houses, leave a large vacant building on the corner of Frye and Wisconsin, and take more of Glen Oak Park out of use. It’s nothing, really. Nothing the little people should have any say about.

To add insult to injury, now the board wants public input. Now, the board wants buy-in. Now they want to patch things up with the remaining neighbors. Matheson is essentially saying — in the same breath — “screw you” and “we want your input!” That engenders trust and cooperation, doesn’t it?

No doubt his remarks are a reference to the recently-created School Design & Construction Planning (SD&CP) Committee. At the February 21 school board meeting, Guy Cahill explained the purpose of this committee (emphasis mine):

[T]he goal of this committee will be to advise the Administration and Board on the programming elements that are to go into the building – how will teachers teach, how will students learn and how will that affect student achievement. The core committee will also reach out into the community with several sub committees asking, “What fits into this neighborhood, what extra curricular activities would you like to see at this site, what should be some of the partnerships and what services would you like to see offered at this site.” The core committee will also be advising the Board’s Building Committee on the selection of the architects and will select seven firms to give presentations to the Board’s Building Committee. In addition the members will visit firms and school sites to see how the firms’ designs fit our requirements.

Let’s see if we can answer one of those questions: “What fits into this neighborhood?” Neighbors fit into the neighborhood. Too bad they won’t be there anymore.

City of Peoria, Press Release

Public meeting on landlord licensing planned

2 Comments

NEWS RELEASE
Date: April 4, 2006
Released by: Alma Brown, Public Information Officer, 494-8554
Subject: LANDLORD LICENSING

Council Member Bob Manning will hold a meeting on April 8, 2006, from 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. at Peoria City Hall, in City Council Chambers, to discuss the possibility of requiring landlords to be licensed.

The meeting is open to the public and the community is encouraged to attend.