All posts by C. J. Summers

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

As I was saying about the Civic Center….

3 Comments

Remember when I wondered whether the problem with the Peoria Civic Center could be the management? Well here’s a story about poor management and a little warning to any brides-to-be: don’t believe any Civic Center advertising you see in bridal magazines.

In the 2006 Central Illinois Wedding & Celebration Guide published by LimeLight Communications, Inc., the Peoria Civic Center placed this ad:

Now, what would you think if you saw this ad? Would you think that they were going to waive the rental fee if you booked your reception and catering at the Civic Center?

Think again.

Despite the plain language of the ad and the absence of any exclusion disclosures, the Civic Center recently refused to waive the rental fee for a bride-to-be who is (was) renting the Civic Center theater lobby. Supposedly, the lobby is excluded from this promotion. Too bad they didn’t say that in the ad.

In fact, elsewhere in the same magazine, there’s this listing under “Banquet, Event & Meeting Facilities”:

Notice the wording here. They list their three large venues, then say that meeting and banquet rooms are “also available” — “also” means “in addition to” — and to “see [their] ad on page 24,” which is the ad displayed above.

The Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act clearly spells out what is considered false advertising. Section 2(a)(9) says it’s a deceptive trade practice to “advertise[] goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.” The Civic Center advertises free rental if you book your reception and catering there, but they apparently have never had any intention of waiving the rental fee in certain parts of their facility. Since they didn’t disclose those exclusions in their ad, it sure looks like deceptive advertising to me.

They should show some integrity and honor their ad. Since they won’t, they will lose an $8-10,000 wedding reception, settling for a $200 cancellation fee. Way to go, Civic Center. Keep driving the business away. You’ll always have our HRA taxes.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Could Park Board’s illegal act doom school building plans?

5 Comments

The Journal Star reported this morning that the Park Board violated the law by discussing, in closed session, plans to let District 150 use some of its park land to build a school.

What the article didn’t address were the possible consequences of the board’s illegal action. According to the Illinois Open Meetings Act, this opens up the park board to litigation in circuit court, and that court:

. . . having due regard for orderly administration and the public interest, as well as for the interests of the parties, may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, including granting a relief by mandamus requiring that a meeting be open to the public, granting an injunction against future violations of this Act, ordering the public body to make available to the public such portion of the minutes of a meeting as is not authorized to be kept confidential under this Act, or declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.

Check out that last possibility: “declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.” It would be interesting to know what actions were taken at those meetings, wouldn’t it? I mean, if they decided to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the school district at that meeting in closed session, then that action could be subject to reversal.

Circuit court may again be the answer. The Open Meetings Act requires closed sessions to not only take minutes, but have an audio or video recording of the proceedings, and the circuit court can examine those as evidence.

But there’s a time limit of 60 days from the discovery of a violation for action to be taken. When those east bluff residents meet this afternoon at 1:15, they may want to consider their options in light of the park board’s violation.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Uncategorized

If you live close to a park or school, beware

1 Comment

I got to thinking about the park and school districts’ plan to site a school at the corner of Frye and Prospect. Their justification for this is that they need 15 acres to build a new school, and thus the current campuses aren’t large enough. They also see an intergovernmental agreement as a major boost for civic cooperation, and the Journal Star has already patted them on the back for it.

Now, if you recall the long-range plan for the school district, they want to tear down 11 schools and build five new ones. This proposed school at Frye and Prospect is only the first one of five. So my question is this:

Where are the other four schools going to be sited?

Since all the schools to be replaced are in the older part of town where there’s very little greenspace left, and since intergovernmental agreements are seen as such a positive thing, I don’t think it’s any stretch of the imagination that the other four schools will be sited exactly the same way.

Thus, if your property abuts a park in the older part of town — you might want to make some contingency plans now. You may pick up the paper one morning and discover your house is the next to go.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

State does not require 15 acres to build new schools

3 Comments

I listened to WMBD radio’s morning show today and they interviewed Ken Hinton on the school & park districts’ school-building plan. I don’t have a transcript of the interview, so I can’t swear to what exactly he said, but I came away from the interview believing the State of Illinois requires new schools be built on 15 acres of land.

Not that I don’t believe Mr. Hinton, but I was just curious where that statute was written, so I started doing some checking. I looked on the state’s website, at the Illinois School Code, and at building grant requirements. Nowhere could I find any reference to a minimum site requirement of 15 acres.

So I called the school district offices and spoke with Mr. Guy Cahill (Mr. Hinton was unavailable). He said that he hadn’t heard the interview, but that if Mr. Hinton said 15 acres was “required,” then he misspoke. The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) recommends new K-8 schools be built on at least 15 acres (and new high schools on at least 50 acres), but there is no minimum requirement.

Mr. Cahill also referred me to the ISBE for more information on the reasoning behind their recommendations. I’m still waiting for a call back.

By the way, I’m in agreement with Bill Dennis of the Peoria Pundit on why this land-grab building plan is a bad idea. One item I would add to his list is that the problem with the school district is not its buildings. They make it sound like people will flock into Peoria to send their kids to a new school building or that student achievement will magically improve simply by virtue of building a new, “modern” structure.

And I couldn’t help but notice that the Journal Star already had an editorial written praising this plan on the very day details of the plan were disclosed to the public. Considering the Journal Star has never seen a park district proposal it didn’t like, I think they’ve become the park district’s de facto marketing department. They clearly knew about the park district’s plans ahead of time (or else that was the hastiest endorsement I’ve ever seen), yet I’ve seen no reports on it in the paper. Why not?

Kellar Branch

Kellar Branch Update: Western spur gets its first test

1 Comment

Carver Lumber finally received rail service again when Union Pacific dropped off three cars on the western spur and Central Illinois Railway delivered them to Carver’s loading dock on Thursday, March 16. Local blogger and train enthusiast David Jordan reported this event on the PeoriaRails Yahoo Group:

Central Illinois Railroad made its first revenue run today.

DRSX SW-9 #1207 pulled the three cars from Pioneer Jct. [where the western spur meets the Union Pacific line] and delivered them to Carver Lumber, restoring service to this customer for the first time in seven months, and becoming the first revenue freight train to operate on the former Union Pacific Pioneer Industrial Lead since the last boxcars were delivered to International Paper before closure in late 1995.

Boxcar BCOL 60384 is on spot by the unloading platform, centerbeam flat car TTZX 34700 was already unloaded by 4:00pm while the second boxcar, HS 3185, sits just inside the gate waiting to be spotted (still coupled to the TTZX car). A fourth car (TTZX 84700) is enroute . . . .

Central Illinois Railway (CIRY) never did provide service to Carver Lumber over the Kellar Branch as the city promised and CIRY’s contract stipulated. They attempted it once with insufficient equipment and ended up with a runaway train and a derailment. During the seven months they were without rail access, Carver Lumber had to ship their freight by truck, adding over $25,000 to their shipping costs.

You may remember that Carver Lumber reported this to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) and asked the Board to stay their order allowing the city to remove the Kellar Branch tracks. Carver wanted the order stayed until they started receiving rail shipments again and could get assurance that service via the western spur would be comparable to the service they used to receive from Pioneer Industrial Railway (PIRY) over the Kellar Branch.

Now that they’ve received their first shipment over the new spur, they will presumably be replying to the STB with their report on the adequacy of service they’re receiving. Rail experts speculate that Carver will be paying more for rail service due to the additional routing of shipments.

Meanwhile, PIRY has been busy filing multiple requests with the STB and litigation in state court and U.S. Appeals Court. The U.S. Appeals Court case is apparently on hold pending the Board’s decision on whether to lift their stay or reopen the proceeding that allowed service to be discontinued over the Kellar Branch.

So, expect this to drag out for a while.

Continue reading Kellar Branch Update: Western spur gets its first test →

City Council, City of Peoria

Council roundup: Longevity pay gets the short straw

Long-time city employees will no longer be rewarded for simply sticking it out a requisite number of years.  The city council voted to eliminate longevity raises/bonuses for city managers and give salary increases based on merit alone, like most businesses nowadays.

If I worked for the city a long time, I would probably be ticked off.  On the other hand, councilman Turner pointed out that Peoria eliminated longevity pay two or three other times in recent history, only to reinstate it a few years later.  So perhaps it will prove to be a temporary measure.

This measure is predicted to save just under $300,000.

Sorry for harping on this, but if the city is so strapped for funds, why didn’t they sell that old rail line that runs through the heart of the city to Pioneer Railway and rake in that cool $565,000 when they had the chance? Maybe they should approach Pioneer and see if they’re still willing to buy….

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

Council roundup: Hotel “request for proposal” approved

4 Comments

The city council wants to get proposals for a new hotel that would be physically connected to the Peoria Civic Center.  The Civic Center Authority believes that such a hotel is crucial for the success of the civic center expansion.  According to the all-knowing, all-seeing consultants, convention centers “in northern climates” are more successful when they have climate-controlled hotels connected to them.  Thus, they’re looking for a hotel that meets this criteria:

  • National chain with centralized reservation system
  • Minimum 3-4 star Mobil rating
  • At least 250 rooms (300 preferred)
  • Full-service, including pool, sit-down restaurant, bar and room service
  • Facility must be architecturally compatible with Peoria Civic Center

Incidentally, I think that second bullet is funny — I mean, is the minimum 3 or 4 stars?  It can’t be both!

The request for proposals originally specified where the hotel would be sited on the Civic Center property, but the council decided to leave the specific location open to developers, so long as the hotel is physically attached somehow.

My take: This is only the latest in a series of proposed “silver bullets” for the success of the Civic Center.  What does the Civic Center need to be successful?  HRA taxes.  A consultant.  A renovation.  An expansion.  A hotel.  It never ends!  It’s like that old detective show “Columbo” starring Peter Falk.  Just when you think you’ve finally gotten rid of them, they turn around and say, “Oh, one more thing….”

We’re always just one more large capital expenditure away from wild success.  This hotel is just the latest mirage.  They’ll build it, and the Civic Center will continue to operate in the red, and then we’ll hear that there’s just one more thing we need:  a new covered parking deck, perhaps, or a private restaurant in the Civic Center proper, or whatever.

I don’t know what the answer is for the Civic Center, but I can tell you that it isn’t more tax money. Why is it that The Mark of the Quad Cities can make a profit for 12 straight years (they had their first losing year in 2005), but Peoria’s Civic Center, which is managed by SMG, can’t ever turn a profit?  Is it time for new management?

City Council

Council roundup: Council quiet on noise ordinance

5 Comments

The city council tonight deferred action for two weeks on a proposed noise ordinance revision.  The council agenda included an item that would give the police the power to impound a vehicle that violates the noise ordinance (noise so loud it can be heard from 75 feet from the vehicle). Councilwoman Van Auken explained she wanted to (a) make sure motorcycles would be exempted, and (b) gather more information on how effective enforcement of this type of ordinance has been in the communities where it has been tried.

Immigration, US/Mexican Relations

Manifest Destiny

3 Comments

It disturbs me that Mexican President Vicente Fox is pleased that the U.S. is working on passing the closest thing to amnesty as they can for illegal Mexican immigrants. According to the Associated Press:

Mexican President Vicente Fox said the vote was the result of five years of work dating to the start of his presidential term in 2000, and puts Mexico one step closer toward the government’s goal of “legalization for everyone” who works in the United States.

“My recognition and respect for all the Hispanics and all the Mexicans who have made their voice heard,” Fox said. “We saw them turn out this weekend all across the United States, and that’s going to count for a lot as we move forward.”

Doesn’t it bother him that conditions in his country are so bad that millions of its citizens are fleeing across the border to the U.S.? Instead of working for five years to make it easier for them to leave, wouldn’t it be better if he spent his time trying to improve conditions in Mexico so people weren’t so compelled to get the heck out of there?

A more provocative question: has the idea of Manifest Destiny been vindicated? That is, has the U.S. proved its economic and political superiority, thus justifying its territorial expansion?  Would Mexicans be better off if the U.S. annexed Mexico (peacefully, of course)?