All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
City Council, Illinois American Water

Question for Grayeb: What do you have against Germany?

4 Comments

We get it, Chuck.  You really don’t like Germans and you don’t like our water company being owned by them.  You want the city to buy it back so it’s under local control.  You’ve made your point, now move on. 

As you know, Illinois American Water Company is owned by RWE-AG, a German company.  And at every council meeting, Grayeb has something snide to say about the Germans and how much they don’t care about central Illinois.  And I mean every meeting.  To hear Chuck talk, you’d think Hitler himself was running the company, poisoning our water in an attempt to exterminate Peorians.

Well, guess what, Mr. Grayeb?  The water utility isn’t the only company with corporate headquarters far away and thus (by your logic) little concerned for our needs here in the heartland.  Consider these (and shudder!): 

AmerenCILCO:  headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri
Insight Communications:  headquartered in New York, New York
SBC/AT&T:  headquartered in Bedminster, New Jersey

That’s right!  The city has a lot of work ahead of it to purchase these basic services and get them under local control again.  I realize these companies may not be interested in selling their respective systems to the city, but since when has that stopped you?

I wonder if anyone is sending Grayeb’s xenophobic diatribes to Friedrichshafen, Peoria’s “sister city” in Germany.  Maybe if Germans are such horrible people, we should sever the city’s official relationship with them.  And maybe we should pass an oridance outlawing the eating of German food and force the Hofbrau House out of the city.

Suggestion for Grayeb: tone down the rhetoric.  You’re not winning the hearts and minds of Peorians with your current “foreigners-are-evil” tactics.

City Council, Peoria Police, Traffic

Council Roundup: Jaywalking and “W. B.” Grayeb

Councilwoman Van Auken expressed appreciation for the Peoria Police and defended their enforcement of laws against jaywalking.  She suggested that if people think jaywalking laws are stupid, perhaps they should work on repealing such laws.  And that was the last sensible comment made on the subject.

Following Van Auken, several council members scoffed at the police doing their jobs by acting on citizen concerns and issuing tickets to scofflaws.  Reasons? 

There are more important crimes on which they should be focusing, one said.  Yes.  And there are more important crimes than speeding and seat belt violators, but they set up stings for those all the time.  Not compelling.

Another was concerned that it will drive pedestrians away from downtown.  I never realized that running across a busy street while dodging cars was the definition of “pedestrian friendly.”  One wonders why we bother putting up Walk/Don’t Walk signals all over town with countdowns and everything if they’re such an impediment to a pleasant pedestrian experience.  Let’s be real friendly and require pedestrians to take their lives in their hands on all busy streets!

Still another council person thought it was too heavy-handed of a response to write tickets.  I suppose they could have handed out warnings, especially since they had never enforced jaywalking before, so I’ll give them that one.

But then there was my favorite reason:  the law is too difficult to understand.  Yep.  That was one of Morris’s and Sandberg’s complaints.  I guess there are some loopholes in the jaywalking law (what law doesn’t have loopholes?), and because of that, we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, according to these two council members.  If this discussion hadn’t gotten completely ridiculous prior to this point, it crossed the line here.

But just when you thought it couldn’t get any goofier, “W. B.” Grayeb chimed in.  You know what the “W. B.” stands for, don’t you?  Yep, you guessed it: “Water Buyout.”  This is the only issue Grayeb cares about anymore.  All discussions come back around to the water buyout, somehow, some way.  We got our weekly report on how RWE (did you know they’re foreign owned?) isn’t going to be selling American Water Company in pieces.

I’ll revisit “W. B.” Grayeb in a future post.

City Council

Council Roundup: The big issue that disappeared

Well, I’m sure I’ll read about this in tomorrow’s paper, but the issue I was waiting for inexplicably disappeared tonight.  Crusens had asked to deannex the former Hunts property from the City of Peoria so it could be annexed by West Peoria.  This makes sense since they’re contiguous and would most likely be used for one business, Crusen’s bar, which is located on the West Peoria side.

However, they sent a letter requesting their petition for deannexation be withdrawn.  Without any further explanation, the issue was gone.  Poof!  That didn’t stop Councilman Morris from babbling about his opposition to deannexation anyway. 

City Council

Council Roundup: Peoria loses federal funds; reduces staff

The city is two employees leaner after tonight. 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reduced the amount of money it provides the City of Peoria in the form of three grants: the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Act grant and Emergency Shelter Grant.  The grants were reduced by 9.5%, 6%, and 0.5%, respectively.  That’s a lot of lost funding — in fact, it’s a $260,000 drop from last year, and a $903,000 drop since 2002.

That means that the city has to do something to make up for the shortfall.  They decided tonight to take several steps, including a cut in staff.  The Planning Department will lose two employees and funding for specific programs was moved around or reduced. 

Additionally, one staff position will be moved from the Equal Employment Opportunity office to the Inspection Department.  This generated quite a bit of discussion, as Councilman Gulley was opposed to it.  He questioned whether there was enough remaining staff to comply with EEO requirements.

The recommendation passed on a split vote, 6-4.

City Council

Council Roundup: Mail call — we’re demolishing your property

When the city identifies an unsafe or dangerous building in Peoria, it can move to have it demolished.  Part of that process is sending a letter to the owner of the property telling them the city is going to be tearing it down.  Up until tonight, the City of Peoria has been mailing those notices via certified mail.  After tonight’s vote, those notices will be served via regular mail.  It will save the city maybe $300 a year and shave three weeks off the demolition process. 

Not very significant, as Gary Sandberg and others pointed out.  But it’s some movement, so it passed, 6-4.  Something that didn’t come up in the council discussion, but was included in the Request for Council Action, is that this decision means Peoria will be following the State of Illinois statute on the same issue (65 ILCS 5/11-31-1).  So it’s not like Peoria is an oddball community by serving these notices via regular mail.

Ray LaHood

It brings in the pork to my district, so it’s good

Ray LaHood defends the “earmark” system in today’s Journal Star:

He said some high-profile problems with earmarking, such as the so-called “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, are projects “put in at the 11th hour by some powerful person, and nobody ever sees it before it’s voted on.” Such appropriations are “a perversion of the system,” he said.

He says later that he approves of earmarks as long as they’re done in a “transparent way” — meaning “people get to see it before they vote on it.”

Notice he doesn’t mention anything about reforming the system.  He wants to keep it in place, even if there is some abuse, because it brings in the pork.  He cites the Lincoln Presidential Library (Springfield) and a new law enforcement communications center (Lincoln) as examples of how he used earmarks to benefit Illinois.  He didn’t mention his recent earmark that gave Firefly Energy a $2.5 million military contract.

CNN recently reported (“Can this elephant be cleaned up?” by Perry Bacon Jr., Mike Allen, January 18, 2006; 7:16 p.m. EST, cnn.com, permalink gone):

Lobbyists are paid to land earmarks; Abramoff used them to get money for his tribal clients. The number of those earmarks mushroomed from close to 2,000 in a highway bill in 1998 to more than 6,000 in that bill last year. Practitioners say the boom is a major factor in the doubling of the number of lobbyists in Washington over the past five years, to almost 35,000, and Bush points to the popular practice as one of the reasons curtailing federal spending is so difficult.

Bottom line, earmarks are power. They allow congressmen to push money to their districts — sometimes benefitting specific private companies (like Firefly).  None of the senators, LaHood included, want to give that up. I understand that.

But some senators are talking about significant reform of the earmark system — beyond just getting to see the legislation before they vote on it.  Boehner, according to the CNN report, wants to “try to prevent federal dollars from going to private entities for exclusively private purposes,” for example.  Another plan “would identify the sponsors of earmarks and force members to defend them, eliminating the many mysterious entries that now bristle in the budget.”  McCain favors limits on earmarks as well.

In the Journal Star article, LaHood comes across as a defender rather than a reformer of the earmark system.  His reason:  it’s bringing home the bacon to central Illinois.  That’s not a very compelling defense when you consider every other congressman is bringing home the bacon to their states, districts, and private companies as well.  It’s a broken system, and LaHood should be working to reform it instead of defending it.

City Council, Heart of Peoria Plan, Museum Block

Museum Square Revisited

6 Comments

The boomerang-shaped building is back.  And it wants more money.

Apparently the underground parking deck is going to cost $3 million more than planners thought, so now they want to set up a TIF to pay for it.  The Journal Star editorializes that the city should give them the money because it’s a “signature development of this generation.”  They reason that it was the Heart of Peoria Commission’s recommendation that led to the idea of putting the parking underground, so the city should accept responsibility for that action.  After all, they argue, “Would City Hall prefer that Museum Square have a suburban-style surface lot on its riverfront?”

That’s a rhetorical question, of course.  But it’s also a false dichotomy.  There are several other options in reality.  In fact, this could be just the opening the city council and Heart of Peoria Commission needs to revisit the site plans overall.  Let’s look at just a couple of other options:

Do We Really Need More Parking?

One thing to consider is whether additional parking is necessary on that block at all.  There’s a parking deck and surface lot directly across Water Street that gets very little use during the day.  And since, under the current design, Museum Square will only be active during the day, wouldn’t that parking suffice?  You have to figure, they’re only developing a little over a third of the square footage on the old Sears block, and the museum design doesn’t include any residential or restaurant component that would keep people there past 5:00 when the museum closes.  Why the need for more parking?

Change the Building Plans

One of the reasons the underground parking is going to be so expensive to build is because it’s a rectangular parking area partially underneath the building and partially underneath a courtyard.  In other words, the footprint of the building and the footprint of the parking deck don’t line up.  That adds to the cost.  So, I think it would be reasonable to suggest that developers consider modifying their building plans. 

Why not?  Museum backers are wanting to change the financial details of the plan; why isn’t it fair game for the council to turn the tables and ask the developers to change the physical details of the plan?  There’s more than one way to save $3 million. 

There’s plenty of justification for this idea that goes beyond the parking situation.  As I’ve written previously, the current design for Museum Square is totally contrary to the Heart of Peoria Plan, which the city council adopted “in principle.”  The Heart of Peoria Commission unwisely chose not to make a recommendation when the site plan came before the council back in November.  But maybe this new wrinkle will give them and the council a second chance.

If Museum Square were to follow the Heart of Peoria Plan, the parking deck wouldn’t be an issue:

  • The style of the buildings would be in keeping with the surrounding architecture, meaning (among other things) they would be more rectangular in shape, making it possible for the footprints of the building and underground parking to coincide.
  • There would be more density on the block.  Instead of only a little more than a third of the block being developed, over two-thirds would be utilized; a larger building footprint means more room for parking underneath.
  • There would be residential (or hospitality), retail, and restaurant components included in the plans, which would generate additional revenue for the development and keep the block active 24 hours a day, seven days a week, justifying the need for more parking in the first place.

The Journal Star is right about one thing.  This will be the “signature development of this generation.”  So isn’t it important that we get it right?  I know some may balk at the idea of sending the planners “back to the drawing board” at this point when they’re so far along in the process.  But until the buildings are in brick and mortar, all they have to change is their paper drawings, and that’s not going to cost $3 million.

Now is the time to revisit this and get it right.

Social Justice

U2’s Bono challenges nation at National Prayer Breakfast

4 Comments

Say what you want about rock stars who have a “cause,” but I thought Bono’s speech at the the National Prayer Breakfast was really inspired. Not inspired like the Bible is inspired, but certainly inspired by the Bible. He talks a lot about social justice, which is something you don’t hear much about in conservative circles, which is odd since a lot of conservatives are Bible-believing Christians.

In fact, many of my conservative friends who listen to a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh scoff at the idea of social justice. They seem to think that everyone who is poor is poor by their own choice and should just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. I won’t deny that that’s true in some circumstances, but even so, haven’t we all made some stupid mistakes in our lives? Do we really want to be judged the way someone like Limbaugh judges the poor? I don’t.

I wouldn’t ally myself with everything Bono says, but probably about 95% of it. If you have the time, I encourage you to read his speech and see if it doesn’t put in perspective what it means for us to love our neighbors as ourselves on a national scale. I’ve reprinted it here for you so you don’t have to go searching for it. It’s kind of long, so I’ve put it on a separate page. Just click the “Read the rest of this entry” link below.

Continue reading U2’s Bono challenges nation at National Prayer Breakfast →

Heart of Peoria Plan, Traffic

Make Adams and Jefferson two-way

5 Comments

Back when downtown had lots of retail shopping and there were lots of people converging on downtown every day, it made sense to increase capacity along Adams and Jefferson streets by converting them to one-way.  But today, this configuration is unnecessary.  And with the I-74 redesign, this configuration makes even less sense.

It used to be that you could enter I-74 east or west from Adams.  This made sense because Adams was one way heading out of the central business district.  You could hop on Adams and zip down to the expressway.  However, the entrance ramp to 74 east was too short and, thus, dangerous.

So now the entrance ramp to 74 east is on Fayette between Jefferson and Adams.  So, if you’re leaving downtown, you now have to loop around to hit it.  If you’re going north on Adams, that means you have to go left on Bryan, left on Jefferson, left on Fayette, and voila! you’ve found the on-ramp.  Not very efficient traffic flow.

It’s just one more reason why we should change these streets to two-way.

At-large councilman Chuck Grayeb suggested that very thing back in October, but the idea was pooh-poohed by Public Works Director Steve Van Winkle.  But check out his reasoning:

Public works director Steve Van Winkle says a conversion could actually hurt one of the Heart of Peoria Plan’s principles of a “pedestrian” downtown. “There is a desire whenever possible to make streets narrower. You virtually give up that option if you go two-way. It’s much easier to narrow a one-way street because you usually have excess capacity.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it?  Sounds like he’s really bought in to the Heart of Peoria Plan principles, right?  One problem: the Heart of Peoria Plan actually recommends — specifically — converting Adams and Jefferson to two-way streets.  On page III.14, they have a whole project called “Conversion of One-Way Streets,” complete with discussion.  Here’s an exerpt:

According to the transportation consultant, the typical 60 foot wide street section in downtown Peoria is far too wide for one way traffic, given either the existing or the proposed travel demand. Traffic flow, at the levels indicated by the available data, is simply not a sufficient justification for continuing the one way pattern.
Recommendation: Reconfigure Jefferson and Adams Streets for two-way traffic, with on-street parking.

This makes me question whether Van Winkle has even read the Heart of Peoria Plan.  But, seriously, this isn’t a difficult decision that needs lots of justification from consultants and traffic experts.  Just go downtown sometime and tell me whether, based on your experience alone, you think it’s really necessary to have four lanes of one-way traffic, and whether the traffic flow to enter the interstate heading out of downtown makes sense to you.

It’s time to make Adams and Jefferson two-way.