Category Archives: City Council

Arts Partners, City Council, City of Peoria, HOPC, Peoria Public Schools

Council Musings

3 Comments

Jennifer Davis has a nice article in the Journal Star today (Sunday) about how respect for the Peoria City Council has improved under Ardis’s leadership. I think that’s a pretty accurate statement. “Respect” is hardly a word that would describe the council under Ransburg. I have my criticisms of the council, but overall I think it’s doing a lot better than previous councils.

I’d like to make just a couple of comments on things that jumped out at me from the article:

Heart of Peoria Commission

But [General] Parker says he’s been pushing for an appointment to the city’s Heart of Peoria Commission for months. While he hasn’t talked to Ardis personally, he says he approached three different council members and even recently asked for it during public comment at a City Council meeting.

For the record, there are currently two vacancies on the commission.

Yes, and there have been two vacancies for a while. It was understandable to see them go unfilled while the future of the Heart of Peoria Commission was in limbo. Now that the council has decided to keep HOPC around, and since we’re only going to be meeting every other month, we really need a full crew. Names I have heard suggested for commissioners: General Parker (as stated in the article) and Mark Misselhorn. There may be others, but those are the ones I know have been bandied about. Considering the demographics of the Heart of Peoria Plan area, I think it would be a good idea to have more minority representation.

District 150/City of Peoria Joint Meeting

And, despite a public feud with District 150 last summer over a proposed new school at Glen Oak Park, Ardis, along with the entire City Council, has now agreed to a sit-down meeting next month with the School Board to find common solutions – the first such meeting in at least a decade.

I sincerely hope this meeting is productive, but I have my doubts. I know this has become a mantra with me, but it’s worth repeating: cooperation is not a one-way street. It’s not a give and take where the city gives and the school district takes. If the school district wants to improve relations with the city, there is no shortage of things they can do as good-faith gestures. Fixing up their properties in the Warehouse District would be a good start, as would selling the homes on Prospect that they bought at inflated prices on the speculation that they could put a school there. An apology to Bob Manning for unceremoniously cutting him off when he was addressing the school board on the issue would also be a nice gesture.

What the school district can do to help the city is provide a good education (with good test scores to show for it) in a safe environment (free not only from blatant violence, but bullying as well) and keep property taxes from rising (by not wasting money on unnecessary administrators and properties). What the city can do to help the school district is work to lower the crime rate and improve city infrastructure. If those things would happen, we would be able to attract more people to the District 150 portions of Peoria.

What’s not going to help is for the city to just give the school district money for this or that program (crossing guards, truancy center, etc.). The school district is its own taxing body, plus it recently got approval to fleece the public for more tax dollars through the Public Building Commission. The school district doesn’t give the city money to fix streets and sewers, nor should it. Neither should the city take its money and further subsidize the school district. If the city is keeping the streets safe and the roads and sidewalks repaired and the codes enforced, and if the school district is keeping the school children safe and the school buildings maintained and providing an excellent education, people will want to move here…

Arts Partners Funding

Which reminds me of another article in the Journal Star today, this one by Gary Panetta on the supposed need for the city to provide not actual arts funding, but arts advertising funding:

Should the city of Peoria use a slice of sales taxes to help publicize the local arts scene and market Peoria as an arts-friendly town?

Answer: Sure, assuming all the streets, sidewalks, and sewers are repaired, our fire stations are fully staffed, and the police force has crime under control throughout all of Peoria. Otherwise, no.

After all, if Peoria wants to become part of a high-tech future, it’s going to have to offer young professionals something beyond a place to work and sleep or a few cookie cutter movie theaters. And it should do better at increasing public access to and knowledge of arts events and organizations already here, especially for children whose daily lives don’t leave much room for arts and culture.

Let me ask you something, what’s the arts culture like in Germantown Hills? Or Dunlap? Or Metamora? Or Morton? And how much money are they spending in those communities on the arts? I’m assuming they must have lots of arts and entertainment and that the promotion of those amenities is being paid for by tens of thousands of dollars by the city halls of those towns, right? That’s why they’re growing by leaps and bounds, right?

I’m not saying that arts aren’t important; they are. But advertising them is about as far from an essential city service as you can get. People (even the coveted “young professionals”) aren’t going to move to Peoria because it’s “arts friendly” or because we give Arts Partners $100,000 to advertise the arts we have. They’re going to move to Peoria because our schools are good, crime is under control, and the infrastructure is sound. Everything else is gravy.

If the Civic Center doesn’t need that $75-100,000 in revenue, then lower the HRA tax or else use the money to provide essential services, like fixing the stormwater runoff problem in the fourth district or the $400 million combined sewer overflow project or maybe adding a couple more officers to the police force. Let’s get back to basics and stop frittering tax money on non-essentials while the essentials are suffering.

City Council, City of Peoria

City mechanics offer alternative plan to outsourcing manager position

4 Comments

The city’s mechanics are not happy with efforts to outsource their department. Who would be? No one wants to lose their job, especially when they’ve put down roots in a community and have been working for the city for a long time. But on the other side of the equation, you have a city that simply can’t afford to maintain such a large staff overall and needs to look for places to cut costs. It’s a no-win situation no matter how you look at it.

But now the mechanics are upset about something else. The current Fleet Services Manager is retiring, and the city doesn’t have a succession plan for that position. So, until they can hire a replacement, they need to have a manager for the interim. The city put the position out to bid instead of hiring from within. That prompted the mechanics to write this letter to Mayor Ardis:

Dear Mayor Ardis,

It has come to our attention that a bid has been sent out to take over the position of Fleet Services Manager. This is the position that Mr. Mike Caruso currently holds. We believe we have a more than qualified person to take his position on an interim basis until a permanent replacement is found. We believe Tom Satterfield is deserving of this position. Tom Satterfield has thirty years experience as a mechanic in the city garage. He has more than adequate experience to assume the position for three months until the subcontracting issue is resolved or a permanent person is hired.

It is our understanding that the city manager is in favor of paying an outside contractor approximately $27,000 to take over this position. An alternative plan was discussed in which Tom Satterfield would be made a super crew chief in which there would be a percentage added to his base pay. This increase to his pay in the same three month span would significantly save the taxpayers money. It is difficult for us to accept the idea of working for a manager fiom First Vehicle Service who is not here to benefit the garage or its dedicated employees. It appears as the old saying goes you are placing a “fox in the hen house”.

Since the issue of outsourcing was introduced to us in March, the employees and their families have been on a constant emotional roller coaster and much undeserved stress. We pride ourselves on being dedicated employees and taxpayers of Peoria. For example, the mechanics have had the opportunity to move out of the City of Peoria, instead we have chosen to raise our families in the City of Peoria. In fact, most of the mechanics live within five miles of the shop.

Issues such as the one we are discussing on Tuesday August 14,2007 beg us to ask ourselves this question. WHY? Why replace dedicated, long term, community-oriented taxpayers with “TOTAL STRANGERS”?

In closing we would especially like to thank Mr. Spain for taking the time to come to our garage and get a first hand look at what we are all about and to talk face to face with the employees who will be greatly affected by your decision. We would also like to thank the council members who have supported us through this very difficult issue and look forward to your continued support.

Sincerely,
City of Peoria Mechanics

Several of the city mechanics were at the meeting Tuesday night, ready to speak to this issue, but it was — surprise! — deferred for two weeks. During discussion, however, the city manager did address the mechanics’ letter. He stated that he was concerned that if you had one union position supervising other union positions, such a scenario would lack oversight controls. That statement elicited groans from the mechanics in attendance.

Other council members felt that it would be easier and cheaper to simply ask the current manager to stay on a few more months until a permanent replacement could be found.

City Council, City of Peoria, Kellar Branch

Nichting wants to work on the railroad

30 Comments

Engineer NichtingPatrick Nichting evidently wants the city to go into the railroad business.

First, some quick background: The council decided Tuesday to sign a temporary agreement with Central Illinois Railroad Company (CIRY) that would officially authorize them to traverse an 1,800-foot connecting track between the western spur and the Kellar Branch. The city is still trying to negotiate a new contract with CIRY, but talks have been fruitless so far.

So, during discussion of this item, Councilman Nichting asked several questions of Corporation Counsel Randy Ray. He asked what would happen after the 120-day temporary agreement expired. Ray answered that we would either have a new operating agreement (contract) or council could decide to go in a different direction. Nichting asked if an option was to make a deal with another rail carrier (someone other than CIRY). Ray said yes. So far, so good.

Then came the zinger. Nichting asked if that rail carrier could be the City of Peoria itself — that is, could the city provide rail service over the line instead of hiring a short line rail operator to handle it. Ray said that would be perfectly legal.

So, let me see if I have this straight: Nichting — a guy who is a strong supporter of outsourcing the fleet management function of the city — wants to start providing rail service in house? Gee, that would only cost somewhere between one and two million dollars just for the engine. Sounds like a brilliant plan. We can fuel it with all that money the city has to burn.

I honestly don’t understand this grudge that council members are holding against Pioneer Railcorp. You may recall that Pioneer has offered to buy the Kellar Branch and western connection for $750,000 or agree to a long-term lease on the line. In other words, they would pay the city money to operate the line, as opposed to Nichting’s plan where the city would have to expend considerable funds to operate the line themselves.

Apparently the council and city staff are willing to forgive CIRY for absolutely any indiscretion no matter how egregious, but will forever spite Pioneer. They won’t accept Pioneer’s apology for filing a SLAPP suit against their critics ten years ago, but they will reward the unapologetic CIRY for endangering the public with a runaway train just two years ago. They hate Pioneer because its founder Guy Brenkman is an unlikable, surly fellow, but they won’t hold it against CIRY that its founder is in prison after he was caught trying to hire someone to murder his wife and girlfriend. They castigate Pioneer for fulfilling its contract with the city and upholding its obligation to the Surface Transportation Board, but they won’t take any action against CIRY for not fulfilling its contact with the city, causing Carver Lumber’s sixty-year-old local business to suffer.

I’ve said it before, and this suggestion from Nichting just confirms it once again. This is no longer about wanting to build a trail. This has become an anti-rail, anti-Pioneer, anti-Carver-Lumber crusade, and the crusaders won’t be satisfied until the rail line is torn out and Pioneer and Carver Lumber are run out of our “business-friendly” town. We’re already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorney fees related solely to the Kellar Branch issue, and we’ve already built a $2 million doomed-to-fail connecting track to the west, and now one council member is implying we should pay millions more to get our own rail equipment and personnel just to do whatever it takes at any expense to keep Pioneer off the line.

Is this really the best use — or even a justifiable use — of the city’s funds? Is this fiscal responsibility?

Sell the line. Stop wasting money. Find a different route for the trail.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council roundup: Deferred

12 Comments

Almost all noteworthy business of the council was deferred tonight. The Coves controversy was sent to the Traffic Commission to be vetted. The Orchard District ornamental lighting issue was split into a policy issue and a specific request, both of which were deferred until a later, unspecified date. The museum square proposal was deferred until August 28. They did, however, extend the enterprise zone to include Prairie Farms on University, just north of Nebraska.

It was a night of many deferrals, yet it still lasted until after 9:30. Lord help us when they actually discuss the issues. Grab your pillow.

City Council, City of Peoria, Renaissance Park

BVA asks for free lighting for Orchard District

15 Comments

On the agenda for tonight’s council meeting is a request from Barbara Van Auken to change the policy regarding ornamental street lighting. Currently, if your neighborhood wants these pretty street lights (and my neighborhood has them — they’re great), you have to get over 50% of the neighbors to agree to a 50/50 split of the cost of installing them. The city pays 50%, and the neighborhood pays 50%, divided among the homeowners. Each homeowner can pay their share of the cost as either a lump-sum payment or spread out over 10 years on their property taxes, with interest. This called a “special assessment.”

The Orchard District (which is bounded by Columbia Terrace, Sheridan, Main, and North) wants ornamental lighting, but has not been able to gather the requisite number of signatures to get a special assessment for them. So Barbara Van Auken has a plan: have the city pay for the ornamental lighting not at 50%, or 80% (like they do for sidewalks), but 100%, subject to some restrictions, of course:

Council Member Van Auken has suggested a new policy that would allow for 100% City participation in a lighting project if the following criteria are met: 1. The area served is eligible to receive CDBG funds for a street lighting project; 2. The area served has an established and active neighborhood association that supports the project; 3. There are sufficient CDBG funds available to fund the project.

“CDBG” is short for Community Development Block Grant, a program started by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1974. Basically, the federal government gives money (grants) annually “on a formula basis to entitled cities and counties to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons.” The city receives approximately $1.9 million annually through this program. The Orchard District is eligible to receive CDBG funds because of the average income level of the residents.

Van Auken’s request, the communication goes on to state, “would allocate the entire cost of the street lighting system to the CDBG budget, and qualify the project as an area benefit,” using unallocated CDBG money from past years. How much will it cost to install ornamental lighting on the four interior streets of the Orchard District? We don’t know for sure, but it’s estimated to cost $230,000.

So, the question is, is this good public policy? On the one hand, I can see the benefits of this system. You want to fix up a neighborhood to make it attractive for reinvestment, to try to improve owner occupancy, and slumlords are going to balk at paying higher taxes on their rental properties for niceties such as ornamental lighting. In some older neighborhoods, you may never be able to get any infrastructure improvements that require a special assessment if there aren’t enough owner-occupied properties. In that sense, this is an investment.

But others would contend that this is unfair for a couple of reasons. One has to do with the past: there are other older neighborhoods — also CDBG-eligible — that went through the special assessment process and are still paying for their lighting. The other has to do with the future: since this benefit will only be available as long as CDBG funds are available, and since the cost of lighting is pretty expensive and there are other demands on CDBG funds, very few neighborhoods will get free lighting.

For myself, I have mixed feelings about it. I lean toward relaxing the rules rather than throwing the rules away. For instance, they could change it to be an 80/20 split like the city does for sidewalks (city pays 80% and the neighborhood pays 20%). Maybe the lower cost will tip the scales enough to get buy-in from over 50% of the neighbors. If there’s something that the city should be paying for 100%, it’s sidewalks, not ornamental lighting.

City Council, City of Peoria, Insight Communications, Television

Cable franchise agreement on agenda Tuesday

6 Comments

When the Cable and Video Competition Law passed in Illinois, I expressed some concern over what it would mean for Peoria. You may recall that the Act states:

…if the holder [of a state franchise agreement] is an incumbent cable operator or any successor-in-interest company, it shall be obligated to provide access to cable or video services within the jurisdiction of a local unit of government at the same levels required by the local franchising authorities for that local unit of government…

And I said:

The Act defines “incumbent cable operator” as an entity “that provided cable services or video services in a particular area under a franchise agreement with a local unity of government…on January 1, 2007.” Insight has not had a franchise agreement with Peoria since April 2006 when the last agreement expired. The city has been negotiating a new franchise agreement ever since, but the two parties have not come to terms. So it’s very possible that Insight would not be subject to the “incumbent cable operator” provisions of the Act.

But on Tuesday that problem may very well be solved. The council likely will approve a franchise agreement extension until January 1, 2008, retroactive to April 15, 2006. This extension would also approve a transfer of the agreement from Insight to Comcast. The upshot is that Comcast will be considered Peoria’s undisputed incumbent cable operator, and that may work to Peoria’s advantage whenever Comcast decides what kind of franchise agreement (state or local) it wants to pursue.

Basically what this means is that we won’t see any reduction in cable service, if this agreement is approved.

City Council, City of Peoria, Traffic

The Coves keeping out the riff-raff?

19 Comments

On the consent agenda for the city council Tuesday night is a request from the Coves of Charter Oak Homeowners’ Association to have a gate put across a public right-of-way.

The Coves of Charter Oak is a new subdivision (with restrictions) off of Charter Oak road (across from Weaverridge) that backs up to the older Vinton Highlands subdivision off of Big Hollow road. There’s a common road that connects the two subdivisions called Sedley avenue. The city’s subdivision ordinance requires that the “arrangement of streets in new subdivisions or development shall make provisions for the continuance of the existing streets in adjoining areas” (Ord. No. 10455, § 1, 5-29-79). Hence, Sedley is a through street.

Well, the residents of The Coves have “concerns.” Those concerns are unfortunately not specified in the council request, so the public can only speculate. However, it’s The Coves neighborhood association that is not only making the request, but paying to have the gate installed and maintained, so I think it’s safe to say this is not a mutual concern with the homeowners in Vinton Highlands. Also, they’re not wanting to put a gate at the other entrance to this subdivision — the one off of Charter Oak road. And one would have to assume that The Coves residents are not trying to keep themselves out of Vinton Highlands.

So, let’s see, what does that leave? A concern over cut-through traffic from outside either neighborhood? It seems unlikely that anyone would cut through Sedley when either Frostwood Parkway or Big Hollow Road would be faster routes. So I’m going to have to conclude that The Cove residents simply don’t want Vinton Highlands residents driving through their neighborhood.

The only other gates across a public thoroughfare that I can think of are the gates across Mt. Hawley Road at Kellar grade school. I don’t particularly like those gates either, but at least they have a plausible excuse: child safety. Here, that’s not an issue. Here, we’re talking about two residential neighborhoods, and the only differences between them are demographic.

I don’t exactly understand how they can obstruct a public thoroughfare. Sec. 26-11 of Peoria’s municipal code says, “streets, avenues, alleys and sidewalks of the city shall be kept free and clear of all encumbrances and encroachments, and for the use of the public, and shall not be used or occupied in any other way than as provided in this chapter” (Code 1957, § 36-12). The council communication calls this a “revocable right-of-way use permit,” although I don’t know how one applies for such a permit, or where in the municipal code this type of permit is explained. I have found temporary permits for things like block parties, but all such permits require fees to be paid, and there is no fee mentioned in this council communication.

So, the question is this: what are, specifically, this neighborhood’s “concerns”? And why weren’t these “concerns” put down in writing in the council communication? Are the “concerns” over lower-income residents (or minority residents) driving through the upper-income Coves neighborhood? I’m at a loss as to what else it could be; and if that’s the case, I’m at a lost as to why the city would allow it. But perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation.

The Cove of Charter Oak
City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Library

Snarky Szynaka

1 Comment

Fellow blogger PeoriaIllinoisan recently expressed his dismay that the Peoria Public Library is not open on Saturdays over the summer. Library director Ed Szynaka took the time to respond, explaining that “ALL branches will be open on both Saturday and Sunday when we finish this building alignment.” “This building realignment” refers to the library’s plan to expand some branches, close others, and build a new branch on the north end. But, he added, “we cannot issue the bonds that will let us move forward without the approval of the City Council.”

Then he makes what I consider to be a bit of a snarky comment at the end:

Thank you for supporting the recent vote. 72% of your fellow citizens who voted that also supported that measure. Now getting the City Council to support what the citizens voiced is becoming a very difficult task. Why is no one questioning that issue.

Just for the record, 9,970 votes were cast in favor of the referendum, which was indeed 71.61% of the votes cast (13,923). However, it’s about 14.8% of the total number of registered voters (67,011), and 8.81% of the total Peoria population (113,107). And it’s an advisory referendum, not a binding one. Hence, the need to go through the city council.

I voted for the referendum, but with the understanding that the money to be spent by the library would be subject to city council oversight. It wasn’t a blank check, as Mr. Szynaka seems to imply. I’m willing to pay more for improved library infrastructure and services, but last I looked, the library reps aren’t elected. I don’t want unelected people spending my money with no oversight. I don’t want the city council saying, “oh, the people voted for it, so let’s just let the library do whatever they want with $35 million.”

The best news that came out after that vote was that Gary Sandberg was appointed library liaison. I’m confident that Gary will keep their feet to the fire and make sure that no money is being wasted. And that’s why I’m not “questioning that issue.”

City Council, City of Peoria

Parental responsibility laws largely unenforced, likely unconstitutional

5 Comments

During the “new business” portion of Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Mayor Ardis distributed a memo to all the council members that said:

I am attaching a communication that I sent to the previous council this past spring with a few examples of Parental Responsibility Ordinances being used in other cities. l would like to entertain a discussion on the need for a similar ordinance in Peoria sometime in August.

Attached to the memo were copies of ordinances from five other communities: Des Plaines, IL; Grand Rapids, MI; Royal Oak, MI; Silverton, OR; and Cincinnati, OH (repealed 2002). The council will discuss this topic at the August 28 council meeting.

Rarely Enforced

It’s not surprising that this would come up again right after an unsupervised 15-year-old threw a stone off an I-74 overpass, killing the passenger of a passing car. But how effective are these laws? According to “An Empirical Study of Parental Responsibility Laws” published just last year in the Utah Law Review, not very.

University of Oregon School of Law professor Leslie Joan Harris surveyed every police chief and prosecutor in the state of Oregon and found that “the responses to the questionnaires showed overwhelmingly that parental responsibility laws are rarely, if ever, enforced in most places.” Instead, she finds that they are generally symbolic, “enacted to articulate community values about proper parenting and to induce ‘bad’ parents to reform.” However, such laws do increase the probability that curfew laws will be more stringently enforced. She concludes (emphasis added):

Finally, parental responsibility laws define youth crime as a private problem born of familial failure rather than behavior that, at low levels, is a usual part of the maturation process and, at higher levels, may call for collective efforts to engage teenagers in positive ways, including helping parents in difficult situations. The laws provide politicians with a cheap and easy way of avoiding meaningful efforts to address significant social issues.

I’d recommend reading the whole report as it’s very interesting; it includes a brief history of parental responsibility laws over the last hundred years. It’s interesting to note that these findings are consistent with Jennifer Davis’s report in the Journal Star today. Davis has been calling the communities listed in the Mayor’s memorandum and has so far found that their ordinances are rarely, if ever, enforced as well.

Likely Unconstitutional

But there’s a bigger problem on the horizon for parental responsibility laws. On June 29, 2007, a municipal judge in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, ruled that the city of Maple Heights’s parental responsibility law is unconstitutionalbecause it violates the due process clause of the fourth amendment. (All legal documents related to this ruling are available here. Here’s a PDF version of the ruling.)

Maple Heights’s ordinance was patterned after the one in Silverton, Oregon (which is one of the ordinances being reviewed by Peoria as a possible template as well), and reads in part:

(a) A person commits the offense of failing to supervise a minor if: the person is the parent, legal guardian, or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of a child under 18 years of age, and the child has committed a status offense, unruly act or a delinquent act that would be a misdemeanor or felony of any degree if committed by an adult.

(b) It shall be a defense to the offense of failure to supervise a minor if the person took reasonable steps to control the conduct of the child at the time the person is alleged to have failed to supervise.

Judge Jennifer P. Weiler explains why this does not stand constitutional muster. “The due process clause of the United States Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the offense charged.” In other words, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty — the burden of proof is on the accuser. Weiler continues:

The substance of the Maple Heights offense is the failure to supervise a minor. However, the ordinance presumes a violation where a parent has a child who has committed an offense. It is up to the parent to demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to control the child’s conduct. As such, it is the accused’s burden to demonstrate there was no failure to supervise. This contravenes…the due process requirements….

The ordinance also failed on two other due-process counts. Nevertheless, the City of Maple Heights filed their notice of appeal last Friday, July 20 says Blake Ledbetter of Conoscienti & Ledbetter in Atlanta, Georgia. This isn’t to say that an ordinance couldn’t be crafted that would be consistent with the constitution, but it does reveal that existing ordinances haven’t yet been adequately tested in court.

Just for the record, when I started researching this I was in favor of a parental responsibility ordinance for Peoria. I came to this topic predisposed to look for positive evidence of its efficacy. However, considering the unlikelihood of enforcement, and the questionable constitutionality of such laws, I’m now inclined to think that this is probably not a very effective tool to combat juvenile crime in Peoria.

Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

“Mature neighborhoods” worth saving from IDOT, but not Bradley

13 Comments

At Tuesday’s council meeting, there was quite a bit of discussion about the Northmoor Road improvement project. If the city is going to use IDOT funds for this project, they have to follow IDOT’s rules, and in this case it would mean widening the street to five lanes between Allen and Sheridan roads. The road doesn’t need five lanes.

So, the City Council is trying to persuade IDOT to see things the city’s way and approve fewer lanes for this project, yet not jeopardize our share of federal funds in the process. This is all laudable.

I couldn’t help but notice the irony, though, when Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken started waxing eloquent about why we need to say “no” to IDOT. We need to stand up and say “no,” she said, because these five-lane highways harm “mature neighborhoods.” And if they don’t believe it harms “mature neighborhoods,” then they can come down here and a take a little tour, she continued. We need to tell IDOT that we’re not going to let them mar one more “mature neighborhood,” even if it means losing that federal money, she concluded. She made a very strong statement, and I agree wholeheartedly with it.

I just wish she’d been that bold toward Bradley University when they decided to decimate a “mature neighborhood” for the sake of a parking garage in her own district.

Arbor District Demolition

*My thanks to PeoriaIllinoisan from whom I shamelessly stole this picture.