Category Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria

4 a.m. liquor license area expanded

10 Comments

The Peoria City Council tonight voted in favor of expanding the 4 a.m. liquor license area downtown, 8-2 (Nichting, Manning voting against; Jacob abstaining):

Ironically, according to the language of the ordinance, Excalibur would not be included in the 4 a.m. zone, even though that bar and Club Apollo were the two bars the council specifically wanted to provide with 4 a.m. liquor licenses. Whoops. When Councilman Sandberg brought this up, he was chastised by Mayor Ardis for being “unproductive,” and told he should have brought that information to staff sooner, not “when the cameras are rolling.” Sandberg retorted that he had just read the council communication tonight and had just noticed it, and that in any case the legal department is getting paid to double-check these types of things. The motion was amended to include Excalibur.

Coalition of Concerned Citizens representative Sandra Fritz was given the privilege of the floor and spoke in opposition to the expansion. She said her organization had collected 1500 signatures of residents in favor of getting rid of the 4 a.m. area completely and requiring all bars to close by 2 a.m.

City Council, City of Peoria, History

Historic Duroc building doomed

27 Comments

The Peoria City Council denied historic preservation for the AMVETS building, 237 NE Monroe, at tonight’s council meeting. First district councilman Clyde Gulley moved to deny the request, seconded by at-large councilman Eric Turner. The vote was 9-1 in favor of Gulley’s motion to not landmark the building (Councilman Sandberg voted against; Councilman Jacob abstained).

This was no surprise. AMVETS members started lobbying the council before the Historic Preservation Commission even heard the case or made a recommendation, so the vote was practically preordained. Several council members spoke to the issue.

  • “It’s not pro-business or pro-development,” Councilman Turner said about the historic preservation process.
  • Second district council member Barbara Van Auken concurred, but said historic preservation should be pro-business and pro-development and certainly can be; thus, she reported that she has asked Planning and Growth director Pat Landes to look at how historic preservation is handled in other communities.
  • Fifth district council member Pat Nichting gave his time to AMVETS Post 64 Commander Richard Mitchell to address the council. Mr. Mitchell is opposed to historic preservation for this building because it impedes his organization from selling it to Riverside Community Church, which wants to demolish it. Find more info on the building maintenance and facilities services here.
  • At-large councilman Gary Sandberg cited the Easton mansion as an example of a building where a previous owner did not want historic preservation, but was ultimately preserved and is now a beautiful, well-preserved building with a successful business (Converse Marketing) housed in it. He also argued that the item before the council is whether this building meets the standard for historic preservation; it does, and therefore should be landmarked. He also mentioned that, in response to concerns over economic development, not landmarking this building will not give any economic advantage to the city, since it will most likely be sold to a non-profit organization, which is going to raze it.
  • Fourth district councilman Bill Spears doesn’t want to vote against a veterans organization.
  • Mayor Jim Ardis stated his frustration with the last-minute nature of this situation. He also stated that there’s no independent arbiter to determine whether a building is historic or not. This was a curious statement, as I thought that was why we had a Historic Preservation Commission. What is their role if not to be just such an independent arbiter? Ardis also stated that non-profit organizations such as churches improve the area and make it more conducive to economic development, even though they don’t provide economic development themselves.

Les Kenyon was given the privilege of the floor and spoke in favor of landmarking the building, but his pleas were all for naught. The council voted against landmarking this building, not on the merits of whether the building is historic or not, but on the circumstances surrounding the application.

So, Peoria will soon lose yet another historic building. But we can put big pictures of it in the new history museum we’re going to build downtown once that sales tax referendum is passed. Eventually, a museum is the only place you’ll be able to see any historic architecture in Peoria.

City Council, City of Peoria, History

AMVETS finance officer: “It is now time to move on”

6 Comments

The City Council will vote Tuesday on whether to make the AMVETS building an historic landmark. The Historic Preservation Commission is recommending that they do. But it appears that even if the council ultimately votes against preserving the building, plans to move the AMVETS Post 64 to a new location are already kaput. Riverside Church has backed out of their purchase agreement for AMVETS’ current location, and the owners of the proposed new location — the old Penguin Tap in Peoria Heights — have moved on to another potential buyer for the property who offered more money.

So finance officer Joe Sharpe, in a post on AMVETS Post 64’s new blog, is suggesting the group move on and make the most of their current location. It turns out that it isn’t nearly as expensive to improve the building as some have thought; and it also turns out that ADA compliance may not be necessary for the group to make some extra money renting out the building:

A major reason for the move is not having an elevator. Ever since I started coming down to the AMVETS I was told that to have functions open to the public we must have an ADA compliant elevator. I even voted to spend $250,000 to put in a new elevator. We do not need a new elevator. I finally took the time to call the city to find out the facts. Currently we are grandfathered in to not have an ADA compliant elevator for public events. However, to maintain our grandfathered status, renovations to the building over a 30 month period cannot exceed $100,000 This fits into a “one floor at a time” approach. This is how a Peoria building inspector interpreted the law. I am currently waiting to hear back from a gentlemen in Springfield that handles this type of issue specifically. Please [view the code] paragraph B6.

I have taken a plumber and a union carpenter/contractor to look at the third floor. The plumber was impressed with the newer copper water lines and suggested new toilets, bathroom fixtures, and an additional toilet to the men’s room. The carpenter suggested laminate flooring and paint for the walls. I did not receive a written quote from either, but the carpenter believed that if we spent over $15,000 on paint and flooring materials we would be wasting [our] money.

High utilities are another supposed reason to move. So far this year our average CILCO bill has been under $2,000. The roof was cited as another reason to move. I have been on the roof and, although I’m not a roofer its condition looks excellent. The point is that we can easily spend less than $100,000 in order to start renting out the third floor ballroom.

Fixing one floor at a time is not enough by itself. We must hire someone able to maintain and actively promote the building to its fullest potential. I think Liz has taught us that one motivated employee can make a huge difference to the club. I am referring to the dramatic increase in daytime business. Linda currently cannot take on further responsibility required to fill this needed position.

I thank everyone that has put time into the move and I share your frustration caused by recent events. It is now time to move on and not let our fate rest in the hands of others.

Joe Sharpe
Finance Officer

City Council, City of Peoria

No “wonderful development” on agenda for Tuesday

2 Comments

Of course it could be revised on Friday, but as of today there is no “wonderful development” on the agenda for Tuesday’s council meeting. However, there are some other interesting items:

  • AMVETS building landmark status: The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) voted in favor of preserving the AMVETS building (formerly United Duroc building), but the city council informally voted against it when they were polled by the AMVETS before the issue even went to the HPC. So now it’s really a muddled mess. If the council votes for landmark status, the AMVETS will feel disenfranchised as property owners because it will make their building harder to sell. If the council votes against landmark status, it marginalizes the HPC and sets up a precedent of bypassing them altogether. Oh, and it will mean the loss of another historic building, but that’s nothing new. Peoria never has much cared for preservation. I predict the council will not landmark the building, and it will be torn down before the end of the year. The lesson to take away: don’t wait until the last minute to request historic designation.

  • Convenience loan restrictions: The moratorium is about to expire on any new so-called convenience loan establishments from opening. The city has done some research on possible restrictions to keep such establishments from clustering the way they have along University between War Memorial and Forrest Hill. Their recommendation:

    a. Permitting the use of Convenience Cash Businesses, as permitted and/or special uses only in the B1, CG, C1, and C2 zoning districts (Currently permitted in these districts plus 01, 02, and CN).

    b. Distance requirements of a 1500 foot radius from other Convenience Cash businesses (Note that the City has an inventory of 1,681 parcels with appropriate base zoning {B1, CG, C1, and C2}. Of that inventory, 61% or 1026 parcels meet the distance requirements and could be developed with new convenience cash businesses {Map 2}).

    c. If the distance requirements cannot be met business owners would have the option of obtaining Special Use approval.

    The Zoning Commission had some slightly different suggestions, such as requiring the convenience loan establishment to be 1500 feet away from any residential-zoned district, which would leave only two parcels in all of Peoria where a new loan place could locate. No doubt there will be no small amount of discussion on the council floor before a vote is taken on this one.

  • 4 a.m. liquor license area expansion: Most bars in the area have to close at 2 a.m. But there’s a small area downtown where you can get a special subclass of license allowing you to stay open until 4 a.m. The council is considering a pretty major expansion of that area — one that will include the Warehouse District and extend all the way to South Street. Here’s a map of the current license area and the proposed addition:

    This would include the Club Apollo and Excalibur nightclubs. Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard is in favor of the expansion, and the Liquor Commission approved it 5-0. It looks like a shoo-in for approval by the council, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a few citizens who ask for the privilege of the floor to try to persuade the council against it.

There will also be more discussion on the 2009 budget. You see the proposed budget by visiting the PeoriaBudget.com website.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

“Wonderful Development” odds and ends

3 Comments

Since I started writing on this proposed hotel project, I’ve gotten some calls and e-mails about issues directly and indirectly related to it. Rather than put up an individual post on each item, I’ve decided to just lump it all together under “Odds and Ends.”

Details, Details

I was contacted by a person who is close to the hotel project but wishes to remain anonymous. He told me a lot of the same things Billy has already mentioned in this post, but he added some information and elaborated on other issues:

  • This project has been in the works for over a year and a half.

  • The Hospitality Improvement Zone TIF (HIZ TIF) was proposed because of this potential development. However, the TIF was spread out to include the other existing downtown hotels so they could all take advantage of it if they so desired. Since the establishment of a TIF was open to numerous public hearings and ample public discourse, they feel that the public interest in this project has so far been served.

  • They’re not asking for any additional public subsidy other than those already available (TIF, Enterprise Zone, etc.). So it’s not going to cost the city anything that would directly impact their capital or operational budgets.

  • Part of the business plan of the investors is to be the convention hotel for the Civic Center. And that’s why they want the skyway (climate-controlled pedestrian walkway/bridge) to connect the hotel to the Civic Center. You may recall that the Civic Center Authority believes an attached hotel is “critical” to their expanded Civic Center’s success.

  • Their plan is to tear down the current parking deck and build a new one that will have retail shops on the ground floor. Hence, even though they would be adding a skyway, they believe they will actually be helping rather than hurting pedestrian activity on the street as they will be generating pedestrian traffic with the new street-level shops.

  • There has been some confusion over whether there will be two hotels or one. There will be one. These investors will buy the Pere Marquette and acquire the rest of the block. The other buildings on the block will be razed and a new tower built that will be as high as the Pere Marquette, built of brick, masonry, and glass, and designed to complement the Pere’s architecture. Once the new building is up and running, the old Pere building would be temporarily closed for top-to-bottom renovations. However, they would maintain the historic character of the Pere — i.e., they will be cleaning it up, but not changing it in architecturally-significant ways (meaning some changes will have to made for ADA compliance and things like that). Once it’s all done, it will be one big hotel under one flag.

  • They claim the project will be fully compliant with the Land Development Code and the principles of New Urbanism (except for the skyway, of course).

  • The reason they want/need to move quickly is because they currently are paying for options to buy all the properties — they haven’t actually purchased them yet, pending approval of this deal by the city and all the pieces falling into place (e.g., Big Al’s moving, approval to raze the remaining buildings, etc.). The longer they wait, the more they pay for the options, so it’s in their interests to conclude this process one way or the other as soon as possible.

  • They want to raze Big Al’s and the other buildings north of it on that block during the winter months when they can’t do any construction anyway, then start construction on the new tower in the spring.

  • The major hotel chain that they want to bring in won’t fly their flag across the street from a strip joint, so if Big Al’s moves across the street to the former Euro Jack’s at 500 Main, it will have the same effect as them not moving at all. Thus, it would seem most likely that 414 Hamilton would be the new location for Big Al’s at this point, although recent news reports say that Al Zuccarini is willing to consider other sites.

  • Carnegie’s will be elevated to a fine dining establishment again.

  • Perhaps most importantly to the investors, it will be locally owned and operated. To those who say local ownership makes no difference, this source simply points to the difference between the Mark Twain hotel (locally owned by former mayor Bud Grieves) and the Pere Marquette and Holiday Inn City Center (neither locally-owned). The Mark Twain has decent occupancy and is making a profit. Not so with the other two. In fact, rumor has it that the Holiday Inn will be losing its flag before long… again.

Historic Buildings on Main?

I’ve already had inquiries as to whether there will be an attempt to save any of the buildings the developers want to raze:

No doubt some people are just being facetious. But guess what? There has been a fight over historic buildings on this very block in the recent past.

In March 1993, Duane Cassano announced he wanted to raze the circa-1848 building at 531-533 Main because it was crumbling. He struck a deal with the Central Illinois Landmark Foundation, saying he’d replace the building with an “authentic 19th century facade.” Everyone was happy.

And then, in August 1993, Cassano reneged, saying it would be too expensive to do what he’d promised. Instead, he put up a “wood decking” facade. While he was chastised verbally by the city council, it doesn’t appear from published reports that there were any real consequences for going back on his promise.

I have no idea if any of the other remaining buildings have any historic value or if anyone is preparing a last-minute application to the Historic Preservation Commission. I wouldn’t recommend it, though. Anyone who gets in the way of this project is liable to get run over.

City Council, City of Peoria

First steps toward Big Al’s move approved

36 Comments

As expected, the adult use ordinance change was approved by the council 8-2 (Jacob abstaining, Sandberg and Nichting voting against) and the Class A liquor licenses for 500 Main St. (former Euro Jack’s) and 414 Hamilton were approved 9-1 (Jacob abstaining, Sandberg voting against).

But what’s really interesting to me is some of the rhetoric that is reported from last night. Unfortunately, I couldn’t attend the meeting, and of course it wasn’t broadcast since it was held on a Monday this week. But according to the Journal Star, WEEK.com, and 1470 WMBD, the council members said this:

Ardis said the potential of Big Al’s moving opens up the possibility of “one of the biggest projects that could happen Downtown since the Civic Center.”

At-large Councilman Eric Turner, however, said the votes were based on an issue of what is best for Downtown Peoria, saying that it was “dying” and losing out in economic development to East Peoria.

“The issue is not about Big Al’s, but it’s about economic development,” Turner said. “We stand to lose if we don’t make changes and start looking out for the economic development future of this city.”

Ardis says the reason the public doesn’t know more about the proposed development is because the plan has not been brought before the council yet.

“Nothing is what it appears to be until it appears to be what it is. We really don’t have all the details about this project and as time passes they’ll no more about it and they’ll be more comfortable with what were proposing to do,” says Clyde Gulley Jr.

Mayor Ardis made it a point to remind citizens that Big Al’s is doing the city a huge favor by agreeing to change locations.

In other words, even though we the citizens know nothing officially about this new development, we need to change ordinances and okay liquor licenses to make it happen based on blind faith in the city council. Even though this hotel project “has not been brought before the council yet,” according to Mayor Ardis, all the council people know about it because they’ve been skirting around the Open Meetings Act by meeting with the developer two at a time. That engenders a lot of trust, doesn’t it?

It’s clear from the comments above that the justification for approving the liquor licenses and the change to the adult use ordinance was to make way for a development project that is still being kept a secret from the public. Without the hotel project connected to it, these requests never would have passed the council. Thus, I think the citizens have a right to know what this project is that is influencing the council. I mean, if this isn’t a back-room deal, I don’t know what is.

Don’t get me wrong. This hotel may indeed be a “wonderful development,” as Randy Ray described it. I’m not prejudging the project. I’m just saying that the council is not acting with transparency on public policy issues, and that’s not good governance.

One other thing that I can’t resist commenting on: Downtown Peoria is “dying,” according to Councilman Turner. Dying? You mean the original Civic Center, Civic Center expansion, Riverfront Village, ballpark, Riverplex, etc., etc., have all been abject failures? So noted.

City Council, City of Peoria

Hotel plans still shrouded in mystery

5 Comments

It’s the worst-kept secret in Peoria. Despite not getting anyone to speak on the record, information about the proposed hotel on the Pere Marquette block has been leaking like a sieve to the Journal Star and bloggers. Unfortunately, since we don’t have any official word, we don’t know how much of that information is accurate.

There’s something else we don’t know: what public incentives will be requested for this project. According to Billy Dennis’s source, “Public financing accounted for roughly 40 percent of the cost of building [East Peoria’s] Embassy Suites,” and “Project investors are hoping to secure a similar percentage of public financing for this project through a tax increment financing project agreement.” An ancillary issue is the request to move Big Al’s, with their “grandfathered” status and adult use and liquor licenses, presumably to 414 Hamilton Blvd.

And, of course, there is a sense of urgency for this project. According to the Journal Star, this whole project “could go before the City Council for consideration on Nov. 25.” That’s in two weeks. And, according to Billy Dennis’s source, any delays “would kill the $100 million project.”

Oh yes, the project has been estimated to be $100 million. So, going back to the earlier rumor that approximately forty percent of that would be “public financing…through a tax increment financing project agreement,” we’re talking about $40 million in public incentives. I’m not sure how a TIF is going to provide that amount of financing (consider that the proposed museum is in a TIF, is a similarly-sized development, and would arguably be built by now if they could get $40 million out of their TIF). I also don’t know how the city could afford to give $40 million to a private developer when the budget is already in a deficit.

I’m not sure about a lot of things, because when you get down to brass tacks, the citizens don’t really know anything about this project. We’re being told by many bloggers that this is the greatest project for downtown since the civic center (how do they know that?) and that the city should move heaven and earth to make it happen or else. Or else? Or else no small number of detrimental things will happen: the civic center will fail, downtown hotels will lose occupancy, Caterpillar won’t use Peoria’s hotels anymore, tax revenues will go down, downtown will deteriorate, no one will want to develop in downtown Peoria ever again because it’s so hard to do business here, etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Peoria is evidently on the precipice of oblivion and this hotel deal is its only savior. And that deal itself is tenuously held together — either the developers get everything for which they ask when they ask for it, or the deal’s off. No negotiation, no public input. They make the decisions and take your tax money, and you better thank them for it.

The Journal Star got it right:

We appreciate that negotiations like these can be sensitive and there’s a lot of financial risk involved and not all of that can or should be played out in a public hearing. Nonetheless, there is one overriding principle at work here: If you want the public’s support and especially the public’s money, the public needs to know a little something about the business government is doing on its behalf.

Right now, the public is in the dark. And this huge project might come before the council by Thanksgiving? Sorry, but that can’t be.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Journal Star reveals “wonderful development”

38 Comments

Kudos to the Journal Star for ferreting out information on the “wonderful development” we keep hearing about from the city:

The proposed project would include a new hotel bearing a nationally known flag on the same block with the Hotel Pere Marquette, which would be renovated, sources said.

Sources said the project is spearheaded by local developer Gary Matthews, whose work includes multiple commercial projects in East Peoria, including the Riverside Center and GEM Terrace….

Sources said a feasibility study has been completed for the proposed project and that it was positive. They did not say, however, who did the study.

Matthews and his partners reportedly met with Peoria City Council members two at a time – to avoid having a majority of a quorum and violating the Illinois Open Meetings Act – in recent months to explain the proposal’s basics.

The project, sources said, calls for renovation of the Hotel Pere Marquette, which Matthews and his partners would acquire from current owners Innco Hospitality of Kansas City, Kan., a parking deck, a new pool and spa area.

The two hotels would be connected to the Peoria Civic Center via an elevated skywalk crossing Fulton Street, a document the newspaper obtained shows. Sacred Heart Church would be left untouched.

The hotel construction would require demolition of Big Al’s and adjoining businesses.

A new hotel in Peoria will be good for the economy and certainly good for convention business at the Civic Center. But as with anything, the devil is in the details. Some of those details that concern me are:

  • Design — What will the new hotel look like? Will it conform to the Land Development Code? Take a look at GEM Terrace in East Peoria and tell me there isn’t reason for concern here.
  • Big Al’s — Why the need to bend over backward for this business? In the past when a “wonderful opportunity” came along, the city simply took the property via eminent domain. Think Eagle’s Cleaners, or Midtown Plaza. Here, the city is helping facilitate a move to Hamilton Blvd. apparently in violation of the adult use ordinance, necessitating a change in that ordinance to make it legal. Why not take the property and let Al’s find new digs someplace that conforms to existing ordinances, like any every other business?
  • The skyway — The skyway will take pedestrians off the street. That’s what skyways are designed to do. Unfortunately, this is in direct contradiction to downtown revitalization plans (e.g., the Heart of Peoria Plan) which are designed to put more pedestrians on the street. And then there are the aesthetic issues of putting a skyway across Fulton.
  • The City’s role — What is the city’s role in all of this? What taxpayer funds, if any, will be expended? Surely there will be some — if nothing else, the connection to the Civic Center will require some modification of the Civic Center to receive the skyway traffic. Did the city pay for or help pay for the feasibility study? Since this is part of the City’s Hospitality Improvement Zone (HIZ), what incentives will this project be getting? These are things that should be discussed openly because they are public issues.
City Council, City of Peoria

Council greasing the skids for Big Al’s move

37 Comments

On the agenda for Monday’s City Council meeting is a change to the city’s adult business ordinance that would allow Big Al’s to move to a new location while keeping their “grandfathered in” status. The council communication explains:

Since approximately 1978, the City has had an adult business ordinance that restricted the locations of adult businesses by limiting their distances from other adult businesses, from churches and schools, and from residentially zoned properties. There has always been at least one adult business that has not been in compliance with the ordinance but has been grandfathered and, therefore, allowed to continue at its present location. The attached ordinance would allow such a business to relocate, obtain an adult use license for a property which brings the location more into compliance. The relocation may provide an opportunity for the City to take advantage of a significant development opportunity.

In other words, Big Al’s adult use license would follow them to a new location. They wouldn’t have to reapply. And they continue to be “grandfathered in.” Couple this with the liquor license that was requested for 414 NE Hamilton (which the Liquor Commission didn’t approve or deny), and I think you see where this is going.

Once again, oblique reference is made to “a significant development opportunity,” which is rumored to be either an expansion to the Pere Marquette or a new hotel that will be connected to the Civic Center somehow (pedestrian bridge?). In any case, the deal apparently hinges on allowing Big Al’s to move without giving up their adult use license, so the city is doing everything in its power to facilitate that.

I’m concerned that by doing this, the council will be invalidating their adult use ordinance. What I mean is, they’re changing the ordinance to benefit one business. If they do this for one adult business and not another, with no consistent or reasonable justification for such discrimination, the ordinance becomes arbitrary and capricious, and ultimately unconstitutional.

For example, in 2002, the owner of 617 W. Main St., Frank Genusa, also had a grandfathered-in business called Playmate Video. When he changed tenants to a business called The Dungeon Music and Apparel that sold the same kind of adult material, the city revoked his adult use license, saying the grandfathering no longer applies — even though it was the same landlord, the same type of business, and the same location. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that place is gone, but you see my point: the rules seem to be rigidly applied to one owner, but easily changed for another.

The next year, the strip club now known as Elliott’s started its effort to get an adult use license at its North University Street location. The city fought that by denying a Class A liquor license for the establishment (a requirement for selling liquor if the establishment also holds an adult-use license). That resulted in a lawsuit that eventually cost the taxpayers several thousand dollars, and they got their liquor license after all. Again, the rules are applied aggressively to one business, but bent and rewritten for another.

Why the double standard? This “significant development opportunity” must be a real doozy. I wonder when the public will be let in on the council’s little secret.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Circumvention of voters nearly complete

22 Comments

One of the final steps toward issuing bonds through the Public Building Commission (PBC) for new public school construction will take place Monday night as the Council approves the siting of the new schools. District 150’s ability to access PBC funds was made possible by the efforts of local state representatives George Shadid (now retired) and Aaron Schock. And the reason it was made possible was blatantly to circumvent the voters.

The school board could have put a binding referendum on the ballot asking voters to approve funding for their building plans. Ask anyone at the district or your state representatives why they didn’t do that, and they’ll tell you that they believe a school bond referendum would never pass. Hence, the “need” to go around the voters and get the money through the PBC.

I have a fundamental problem with that process. You have to ask yourself why they think a referendum wouldn’t pass. Consider, for instance, that voters in communities near Peoria have recently approved similar referenda, and voters in Peoria recently approved by a large margin capital funding for library improvements. So you can’t honestly argue that a referendum would never pass.

If a referendum were to fail, it would not be because voters don’t want to make needed upgrades to schools, but because they don’t like the district’s method of “upgrading” them. In other words, voters would use the power of the purse to approve or disapprove of the district’s building plans. For instance, consolidating Irving and Kingman schools into a new primary school building next to Lincoln Middle School and Woodruff High School probably wouldn’t have garnered enough votes because the residents didn’t want to see those neighborhood schools close. Attempts to build a new Glen Oak School at Glen Oak Park would certainly not have gained enough votes because residents very loudly and clearly stated they didn’t want the school sited there.

By circumventing the voters, it not only took away the residents’ decision regarding funding, but also its influence in the design and siting of the new buildings. So when the council communication on the agenda for Monday night says, “The concerns of neighbors have been addressed in the siting process,” that’s really not true. There were public meetings, after which the school board did exactly what they said they were going to do in the first place (with the notable exception of changing the site for Glen Oak School due to a lawsuit that effectively blocked an intergovernmental agreement between the park district and school district). There were public hearings about the design of the schools after all the decisions had been made and there was no intention of changing them.

Public input was a sham because the school board didn’t have to listen to the public or win their approval. They had their construction money regardless, thanks to their being granted access to PBC funding. So they did what they wanted regardless of public opinion. And that’s why you don’t see many people attending D150 public hearings or board meetings these days. Doing so is like a broken pencil: pointless.