All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
2009 Campaign, Museum Block

Peoria Chronicle Endorsements — Public Facility Sales Tax: No

23 Comments

Much has been written on this, both in my blog and at the NoMuseumTax.org website, so I won’t go through all the standard arguments again. What I would like to do briefly is respond to a few of the more common rebuttals I’ve heard.

  • First, there is the rebuttal that absent this museum plan, the block will remain vacant for years to come. Museum supporters base this belief on their assertion that the block has been vacant for fifteen years, and if anyone had wanted to develop it, it would have happened by now. The premise is completely false. Sears closed their downtown store and moved to Northwoods Mall in September of 1998, which is about ten and a half years ago, not fifteen. Plans to put a history museum on the block surfaced the same year, before Sears even closed its doors. Furthermore, the City of Peoria bought the Sears block in July of 1998 — also before the store closed. The city, on the advice of the Riverfront Business District Commission, started the process of putting out requests for proposals on the site in March 2000 to see what private developers would be interested. In July 2000, they aborted that process, deciding instead to wait until a “comprehensive study of the downtown” could be completed. That study came in 2002 and is called the Heart of Peoria Plan. Yet, after the plan was completed, the City didn’t put out RFPs based on that plan, they just gave the bock to the museum in September 2003 when they signed the first redevelopment agreement. The block has been locked up ever since. This block, which has been described as the “crown jewel” of Peoria and the most valuable piece of property in downstate Illinois, will most assuredly be redeveloped if the museum proposal doesn’t pan out. Given the state of the economy, it will likely take a little time for mixed-use development to happen, but I’ll bet a lot more is built in six years of private development than has been built in the last six years while we’ve been waiting for the museum to get its act together.

  • Second, there’s the rebuttal that any development on the block will require a public subsidy, so why not just give it to the museum? I won’t dispute that some public subsidy will be needed, if for no other reason than that the council has set a precedent of handing out subsidies like candy. The question is how much of a subsidy, and how much of a return for that subsidy can we expect? This sales tax is only the latest in a long list of subsidies the museum has already been given. They’re being leased the land — which is estimated to cost several million dollars alone — for $1 a year. They’re in a tax increment financing (TIF) district. They’ve been promised no small amount of public infrastructure improvements around the block, most notably on Water Street. And the City of Peoria is going to own, operate, and maintain the underground parking deck once it’s built. Then there are all the state and federal funds the museum has received. Yet on top of all that, they want $40 million more in public subsidy from the county. And this is for a private, not-for-profit business that will charge admission and pay no property or sales taxes itself. If the city were to give the land to a private developer along with the existing TIF incentive, I bet that would be enough subsidy without having to tap the taxpayers for $40 million extra in bonds. Plus, we’d increase the property tax base and bring in sales tax to boot.

  • Third, there’s the Civic Center rebuttal. It sounds like this: “Can you imagine Peoria without the Civic Center? It was built in hard economic times, too, and now look at what an asset it is to the community! This is our generation’s ‘Civic Center’ moment.” The problem with this argument is that our generation has already had its “Civic Center moment.” Our generation just borrowed and spent $55 million to expand the Civic Center, plus we’re spending another $40 million to put an attached hotel next to it. That’s a total of $95 million in public investment. This was also supposed to stimulate our economy and make us a tourist destination. How quickly that’s been forgotten. How many “Civic Center moments” can we afford? Think about it. At the same time supporters want us to raise taxes for an “education and entertainment” complex, the city is talking about laying off police officers and cutting road maintenance in half, and our local school district is closing schools right and left. What’s wrong with this picture?

Finally, the idea that a “yes” vote will somehow prove that Peoria “believes in itself” is nothing more than touchy-feely marketing spin. Peoria believes in itself. Look around. Peoria has all kinds of educational and entertainment opportunities: the recently expanded Glen Oak Zoo, Wildlife Prairie State Park, the Peoria Civic Center, multiple movie theaters, Cornstock Theater, Peoria Players, Peoria Chiefs baseball, Bradley basketball, Rivermen hockey, Peoria Pirates indoor football, and yes, even Lakeview Museum. Many of these have been done with large amounts of public investment. To chastise taxpayers as uninterested in quality of life issues if they reject this latest tax after all the money they’ve poured into these projects is an insult to Peoria’s residents.

Don’t be fooled. A “no” vote on the sales tax is an honorable vote. It reflects not only fiscal responsibility, but also faith in the community — faith that we can do better, that we can be patient in achieving our vision, and that we can work together to build a better block for all Peorians.

City of Peoria, Crime

State’s Attorney weighs in on David Kennedy

11 Comments

In a previous post, I talked about David Kennedy and his unorthodox methods of fighting crime in urban areas. Police Chief Settingsgaard told me that he has “a team being trained by Kennedy and his staff.” At the same time, I wrote to the State’s Attorney’s office to see what they thought of Kennedy’s methods. I recently received this reply from Kevin Lyons:

Dear C.J.:

In reply to your inquiry about David Kennedy, I am, indeed, familiar with him and this topic. In fact, four Peorians (including a prosecutor from my office and a Peoria police officer) recently returned from Raleigh, NC, following a three day training conference on details of the High Point Project. Recreating the High Point (NC) Project in some cities has met with great success; in others, uh, not so much. But I felt it worthy enough to take a look to see if we may want to embrace this effort and achieve some success for three targeted areas within the city (sorry, but I can’t share with you the neighborhoods that have been designated for this).

These four people will soon complete two more sessions before the ‘project’ here begins. I don’t know whether it will work but I do know that entire generations are lost to the buying and selling of mind-twisting drugs and that changing an entrenched culture will only be accomplished by impacting whole neighborhoods and not just a person here, a person there.

Perhaps it’s because David Kennedy and I are both 50ish and have watched drugs give the grave to friends and neighbors for more than 30 years. Perhaps it’s because we have watched battles being lost for years when waged against criminal drug sales in America. Perhaps the High Point Project makes a little sense because countless other projects do not. We’ll see.

It is interesting, C.J., that you and I were both piqued by this particular approach because, at first blush, this would never be my style…rolling the videotape to the offender and his family and then giving him a free pass. It will be a time intensive task that will take a lot of time by authorities. Then again, as prosecutors say – “there is never enough time…unless you’re serving it.”

Fingers crossed. Thanks for your inquiry.

KEVIN W. LYONS
Peoria County State’s Attorney

My thanks to Mr. Lyons for responding and sharing his thoughts on this topic. It will be interesting to see how these methods work here in Peoria.

Museum Block

Museum presenter accuses me of spreading misinformation

44 Comments

Thursday night was a strange night for the museum presenters. During the question and answer time, museum representative Brad McMillan was explaining what the admission price might be for the proposed IMAX, which was something like $30 for a family of four. Then he said — to my surprise — that it wouldn’t be $60 “like C. J. Summers has suggested.” Brad went on to say he was “tired” of opponents “spreading misinformation” about the project.

“Misinformation”? Why is he mentioning my name in his answer to the question? And where did I say it was going to be $60 for a family of four to visit the Peoria Riverfront Museum’s IMAX? I did have a post about my family’s trip to the IMAX at the Putnam Museum. In it, I said:

The [Putnam] IMAX was not showing any big Hollywood shows, but they did have some short educational films. We took in the double-feature of “Mystery of the Nile” and “Under the Sea 3D.” Admission price for the two approximately 45-minute films was $14 for adults and $10 for children. So for my family — two adults and three children — the total admission cost was $58. And of course no movie is complete without some popcorn and soft drinks. That set us back another $20 or so.

So, first I’d like to point out that my family is not a family of four, but a family of five. Secondly, I clearly stated that we saw a double-feature of educational films that were approximately 45-minutes each. And third, I said they weren’t showing any big Hollywood shows. And the price came to $58. Here’s the receipt:

putnam-receipt

You’ll have to take my word for the price of the popcorn and soft drinks; I didn’t get a receipt for that.

Later in the post, I said, “What the $17 [average annual cost per resident of the sales tax] doesn’t include is the price of actually patronizing the museum, which can be costly, especially if you have a large family. Just going to a couple of educational movies cost my family nearly $80. If we had wanted to visit the museum’s galleries, it would have cost even more.”

Now, if I had a family of four, and if we had only gone to see one educational film, and if we hadn’t gotten any concessions, then yes, the price would have been $30 (2 adults x $8.50 = $17, 2 kids x $6.50 = $13, $17+$13=$30), according to the Putnam museum website. I’ve never suggested otherwise. I was simply recounting my experience. For my family of five, seeing a double feature with concessions, it was nearly $80. Fact.

I think it was completely inappropriate for McMillan to call me out by name in a public meeting and imply that I was spreading misinformation about the cost of attending an IMAX theater, especially when that allegation itself was misinformation!

It’s pretty sad that the museum folks think reports of my family’s day trip might negatively affect their campaign — especially after they’ve spent over $600,000 on signs, literature, and advertising to get out their message.

City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

Museum odds and ends

31 Comments

I’ve gone to several town hall meetings regarding the sales tax referendum, so I’m familiar with the presentations now, and I’ve heard a lot of the same questions. But at last night’s town hall meeting at Northwoods Community Church, I actually learned some new things. Not all of these items are new information — some of it I probably should have known already — but they were all new to me:

First of all, I found out that the Caterpillar Experience will not have free admission for the general public. Mark Johnson of Caterpillar explained that employees/retirees of Caterpillar and their guests will get in free. But if you don’t want to hit up your Cat friends to get you in, or if you’re a tourist/visitor from outside the Peoria area, you’ll be paying $5 for adults and $2.50 for children under 12. I was very surprised to learn this, especially in light of my recent trip to Moline to visit the John Deere Pavilion, which is free for everyone.

Second, it was stated last night that the City of Peoria will own and operate the underground parking deck, and that the parking will not be free. Mr. Johnson stated that the City theoretically could offer free parking, but that they would probably charge the same rate as other City-owned parking decks. Just what the City needs — another money-losing parking deck. It’s worth pointing out that the museum could also offer free parking to their patrons. All they need to do is validate parking tickets and then pay their patrons’ parking fees for them. It’s also worth noting that patrons of Lakeview currently have free parking at the existing Lakeview campus.

Finally, it was stated that — if the referendum passes and the museum is built — the Peoria Riverfront Museum (PRM) would take over ownership of the historic houses currently owned by the Peoria Historical Society. I don’t see how the PRM could afford to own, operate, and maintain those historic houses when the county doesn’t feel PRM has adequate funds budgeted for capital maintenance on the museum building. Living in a 105-year-old house myself, I can tell you first hand that maintenance is not cheap, especially if you want to maintain the historical integrity of the structure.

There were a couple other notable items from last night’s town hall meeting, but I’ll save that for another post.

Crime

Van Auken video clip released

59 Comments

This hit my inbox at lunchtime:

Members of the Peoria news media:

The law firm of Hall, Owens & Wickenhauser, LLC recently filed suit on behalf of the Bradley chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity against Barbara Van Auken, Andrew Rand and Sid Ruckriegel [Peoria County Case 09 LM 329]. Soon after the suit was filed, members of the media and concerned Peoria residents inquired about video shot during the incident that gave rise to the suit. In response to these inquiries, we are today releasing a portion of video and two stills from that video.

Attached please find an approximately nine second segment of video shot during the incident September 20, 2008 at Sigma Nu fraternity involving City Councilperson Barbara Van Auken, then County Board electee Andrew Rand and Sid Ruckriegel. Also attached are two stills from that video.

From left to right in the video are Mr. Ruckriegel (standing behind and to the right of Ms. Van Auken), Ms. Van Auken (foreground), and Mr. Rand. On the far right is a member of Sigma Nu.

In the distant background is the Fiji, or Phi Gamma Delta, fraternity house. The lettering is illuminated. Please note that the sound of crickets is audible.

Aaron T. Wickenhauser, for the Firm
Hall, Owens & Wickenhauser, L. L. C.

[flashvideo filename=https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Video/BVA1_F6_512K.flv /]

vanaukentrespass

vanaukentrespass2
2009 Campaign

Second district race heats up

26 Comments

These anonymous flyers started appearing on porches in neighborhoods surrounding Bradley University today.

The flyer implies that Second District City Council candidate Curphy Smith and his campaign chairman Paul Wilkinson are in cahoots with attorney Jeff Hall who represents the Sigma Nu Fraternity in their lawsuit against Second District incumbent Barbara Van Auken. The unsigned flyer says the lawsuit has “become a driving catalyst for for Curphy Smith’s campaign waging Bradley students against regular citizens of the Second District.”

The flyer goes on to quote an e-mail from Jeff Hall to Bradley students encouraging them to vote for Smith and alleging that Van Auken will “exact revenge on the Greek system at Bradley” if reelected. Finally, it states that the Smith campaign is providing free rides to the Election Commission for early voting and alleges “impermissible electioneering may be occurring . . . within 100 feet of the Election Commission.”

When asked for his response to the flyer, Smith stated via e-mail, “While Councilwoman Van Auken’s decision to run a negative campaign is unfortunate, by no means was it unexpected. I fully expected these types of tactics and expect she will continue them. I have committed to an issue-based campaign against Barbara VanAuken as a city council representative. Instead of distracting the residents the 2nd district with negative attacks and muddying the waters with lies, I would like to discuss how we can make the 2nd district and the city of Peoria a better place for all of us.”

Van Auken, however, said via e-mail that she had not seen the flyer before I e-mailed a copy of it to her. She went on to say, “It was not authorized by my campaign or it would have so indicated. I have no idea who may have sent it. The only message I agree with or endorse is the one stating my desire to continue the progress that’s been made in the Second District as outlined in my authorized campaign literature.”

I talked to Wilkinson on the phone, and he stated in response to the charges on the flyer that the Smith campaign is “not involved in the lawsuit.” They are not trying to pit Bradley against other Second District residents, he continued. “We’re trying to bring people together.” He also said that Jeff Hall is not a member of the campaign staff, and that Hall acted on his own when writing the e-mail asking Bradley students to support Smith.

Hall did not return a request for comment.

I checked with Peoria’s Election Administrator Tom Bride, and he said there was nothing illegal about giving people a ride to a polling place. He also wasn’t sure that a car could get within 100 feet of the entrance to the room where early voting takes place.

My take: I take Barbara at her word that she didn’t authorize this flyer. But it’s obviously a Van Auken supporter that created and is distributing it. Van Auken should condemn the flyer as dirty politics and make it clear that she does not approve this kind of “help” from her supporters. I’m sure she would expect the same of Smith if the tables were turned.

Likewise, Hall’s e-mail, assuming it is quoted accurately, is objectionable. I would also like to see Smith condemn the personal attacks on Van Auken as dirty politics as well.

It’s unfortunate that the person who created this flyer has decided to make the Bradley issue even more polarizing than it already is. Note the choice of language: “Bradley students” versus “regular citizens of the Second District” (emphasis added). I guess Bradley residents are irregular citizens, eh? Or second-class citizens, perhaps? That’s not the way to win friends and influence people. I know it can be challenging living near college students, but I don’t believe antagonizing them, marginalizing them, or being condescending toward them is going to improve things.

And, this probably goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: the person who created and distributed this unsigned, anonymous flyer is a coward. It’s easy to sound tough when you hide behind anonymity.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 going deeper in debt

105 Comments

Things are not looking good on Wisconsin Avenue:

Despite borrowing $30 million over the past three months using tax-anticipation warrants, the school district is again facing dire straits and according to the latest financial statements will not be able to meet payroll in May, much less a significant loan payment due in June. In order to remain solvent, district officials on Monday proposed restructuring its debt by seeking $35 million in working cash bonds, a loan structured to be paid back over several years.

Translation: property taxes for District 150 are going to go up, more teachers are going to get laid off, and more schools are going to close. District 150 needs to be reorganized from top to bottom.

State of Illinois

Redistricting reform long overdue

5 Comments

I am so glad to see that a reform panel is working on the issue of redistricting. My preference for reform is this one:

One recommendation would be to model the process after Iowa, which turns redistricting over to an independent body and a computer programmed to be blind to party and incumbency. Iowa doesn’t use the number of Democrats or Republicans who live in an area in redistricting. As a result, its districts are much cleaner, compact, contiguous and politically competitive.

They say a picture paints a thousand words, so just take a look at the congressional districts in Illinois and compare them to Iowa:

il_cd2002

ia-congress-color

I rest my case.