Category Archives: City of Peoria

Arbor District, Bradley University, Business, City of Peoria

Whither goeth the Arbor District?

Leave a comment

The Arbor District is an historic neighborhood in the West Bluff bounded by West Main Street on the north, Western Avenue on the west, Bradley Avenue on the south, and Bradley University on the east. It has had its share of challenges. In the 1980s, the widening of Western Avenue made the housing facing Western less viable due to higher traffic volume, higher speeds, and less buffer between the houses and the street. So the neighbors decided to establish the Western Avenue Greenway Project, which purchased and razed the houses that fronted Western and replaced them with a linear park. Then in 2007, Bradley University wanted to expand their campus for additional parking, so they purchased all the homes along then-Maplewood Avenue (now AJ Robertson Circle and Clarissa Ct.), razed them, and put up a five-story parking garage to the north and a gravel lot used for parking and open-air storage of building materials to the south.

There are now about 116 improved properties left in the Arbor District, but not many are owner-occupied anymore. Bradley University owns six properties in the Arbor District, one of which they recently razed after letting it fall into disrepair. Ideal Rentals owns a few and rents them to Bradley students. But after Bradley’s campus expansion in 2007-8, Perry and Leslie Tate started buying up homes as they came on the market and putting them into land trusts. Today, they own 73 properties (about 63% of the homes), which they rent to Bradley students under their University Properties company. The acquisition cost of the properties is over $8 million.

Rental properties are an important market segment, and there’s nothing wrong with having some rental properties in a neighborhood. But when the rental properties outnumber the owner-occupied homes, and when they are predominantly rented by students who only stay a few months at a time and are constantly changing, you start to lose neighborhood stability. But the bigger issue here is that you have a single owner consolidating properties in a small, defined area. This opens up concerns that the properties are potentially being assembled for another purpose, and that the rental of them is just to bide time until all properties are acquired.

Adding to this suspicion is the fact that the properties are being put into land trusts. Land trusts are essentially non-profit organizations that actually hold the title to the property. It’s a private legal agreement that specifies a grantor (or owner), a grantee (or beneficiary), and a trustee. This means that in property records, you don’t see the name of the owner as specified by the private agreement–you only see the land trust as the owner. The land trust name and the trustee are the only public information available.

What this means is that the actual owner of the property can be changed without any public disclosure. All that has to be done is for the private legal agreement–the trust–to be amended. In public property records, it will still say that the trust owns it, but you’ll never know that the owner specified in the private trust document has changed. This makes it easy to transfer ownership of property with complete anonymity.

And it means that we don’t really know who owns 63% of the Arbor District. Nor will we know if that ownership ever changes hands as long as the trust holds title to it. And that anonymity and uncertainty makes the remaining homeowners in the Arbor District nervous.

Why? Because Bradley University has already expanded their campus into the Arbor District just 16 years ago and would be the most likely entity to want to acquire the rest of the neighborhood for future expansion. I reached out to Bradley and Perry Tate/University Properties and asked if Bradley was part of the trust that holds title to these properties, but received no answer from either organization.

The trustee for the Arbor District properties is William R. Kohlhase. He’s a partner at Miller, Hall & Triggs, LLC, with offices in downtown Peoria. Their published client list includes Bradley University, but not University Properties. That doesn’t prove anything, but it does fuel speculation and neighborhood concern.

I provided all the information I gathered on this issue to the local media, but they haven’t deemed it newsworthy, apparently. In the 1960s, a time when newspaper reporters were more curious, a reporter for The Sentinel Star (now The Orlando Sentinel) in Florida started to notice large tracts of land being purchased by land trusts. Rumors began to swirl over who might be the real owner of the land. Was it a car manufacturer? A space engineering firm?

Eventually, all the clues pointed to a California company: Walt Disney Productions. And on November 15, 1965, Disney made its official announcement that, yes, they were the ones who were the real owners, and that they would be building a new theme park in Florida: Walt Disney World. The reason they had kept their identity a secret was to keep land prices low. If landowners found out Disney was the interested party, they likely would have raised their prices.

It’s not unreasonable to speculate that something similar is happening here, although not as exciting as a Disney theme park coming to town. Who’s the mystery owner of two-thirds of the Arbor District? What plans are in store for it? Why all the secrecy? Why no comment from Bradley University? If you have any information on this, please let me know in the comments below, or email me directly.

City of Peoria, Economic Development

One Technology Plaza up for auction

1 Comment

If you’re looking for a bargain on an office building downtown, don’t miss the auction for One Technology Plaza October 16-18. Starting bid is $1.5 million. The marketing description indicates the office building is 148,055 square feet (contiguous space up to 22,441 square feet) and only 31.7% occupied.

The building sits at the corner of Fulton and Adams streets, where the downtown Bergner’s store once stood. The old Bergner’s building was razed in the fall of 1997 to make way for the new “Riverfront Technology Center” (as it was called before a naming contest came up with “One Technology Plaza”). Developed by Diane Cullinan, the project was slated to cost $32.2 million, $12.4 million of which consisted of public investment from ICC ($3.2 million) and the City of Peoria ($9.2 million for the parking deck). It also got $1.2 million from Caterpillar and a state grant for $500,000.

At the time it was proposed, the City had high hopes for the tech center. It was going to provide high-tech training and provide high-tech infrastructure for tenants. It was going to revitalize downtown, make us part of the “silicon prairie,” lure new technology businesses to the city, help create a home-grown high-tech workforce, and beautify a blighted corner in the center of town.

The training portion of that dream, a company called RiverTech Community Technology Center, folded just a year after it opened due to lack of business, leaving 6,000 square feet of empty space. And just like that, One Technology Plaza became just another office building downtown, and everyone moved on to the next big project that was going to revitalize downtown.

City Council, City of Peoria, Economic Development, TIF

Saving downtown one new hotel at a time

6 Comments

I stopped blogging for several years shortly after the big Wonderful Development opened downtown. You may recall that they remodeled the Pere Marquette, opened the new Courtyard Marriott, and had plans to put in restaurants and bars and retail, and oh, goodness, that block was going to be hopping! And the best part was, it wasn’t going to cost taxpayers a thing because, “It pays for itself,” an exuberant Mayor Ardis said at the time.

As it turns out, not one restaurant, bar, or retail shop has ever opened in the storefronts along Monroe. In fact, the interior was never even finished; it still looks like a construction site inside. Taxpayers lost the $7 million loan and is saddled with ongoing lawsuits with developer Gary Matthews. And since the pandemic, the Courtyard has been closed, ostensibly due to low demand.

But no worries. It turns out that what downtown really needs to start bustling like it’s 1939 again is — wait for it — another hotel! Yes. The Peoria City Council has just approved another redevelopment agreement with another hotel developer that’s promising 70% occupancy, a national flag (this time it will be a Hilton Garden Inn), a restaurant/bar, and a convenience store. And it won’t cost taxpayers anything. It’s risk-free!

The new hotel is planned for Adams street, across the street from the new OSF Health Care corporate headquarters, in place of the former Sully’s bar and the former downtown Illinois Central College campus (also known as the Perley building). Plans call for the two properties to be razed to make way for the new development. Incidentally, artists’ renderings show Fulton Plaza replaced with two-way vehicular traffic again, but there’s nothing in the redevelopment agreement about it.

Oh, and it’s absolutely, positively, nothing at all like that Wonderful Development from a decade or so ago. Everybody says so: the developer, the developer’s attorney, various other people with a vested interest in the project, and the City Manager.

They have a point. There are many differences. This project includes apartments on the upper floors in addition to hotel rooms on the lower floors. That’s a new twist. The City isn’t loaning $7 million from underfunded pension funds this time. That’s a plus. They’re also not handing $33 million to the developer up front (backed by municipal bonds that we’re still on the hook to pay off), although they swore that was an awesome idea the last time. But hey, we all make multi-million-dollar mistakes with other people’s money now and then. Can’t remain bitter about that forever, am I right?

But on the other hand, there are a lot of similarities. It’s highly debatable that we need more hotel rooms downtown. As mentioned, one entire hotel downtown is still closed–try to book a room in the Courtyard. The occupancy predictions presented at the council meeting tonight (brought to you by Hotel & Leisure Advisors, a consultant for the hotel industry who reportedly did the feasibility study for this project) are unrealistically high, just like they were for the Wonderful Development. They’re also promising a new restaurant and retail, just like they did with the last hotel project, but which never materialized.

And there’s one more similarity worth mentioning: This does come with a cost to taxpayers. This hotel will be in the Downtown Conservation TIF (tax increment financing district), and the City has promised to pay the developer up to 100% of the redevelopment costs out of the increase in taxes attributable to the project site. That’s money that otherwise would go to other taxing districts, such as the County, District 150, the Park District, ICC, etc. That means taxpayers like you and me will have to take up the slack.

This also means the new hotel will be competing with the Pere Marquette and (still shuttered) Courtyard Marriott. The $33 million in bonds to build those hotels is supposed to get paid back out of revenues from those hotels. If revenue goes down due to increased competition for an (I would argue) over-supply of hotel rooms, then the bond repayment has to be made up from taxpayers like you and me. You can’t stop a private developer from building another hotel (that’s capitalism), but you don’t have to give them a sweetheart TIF deal that will likely harm your other investments, either.

True to form, however, the deal was sealed before the Council ever met, and it passed unanimously tonight. That’s okay. We’re finally going to get downtown moving again, just like we were promised with the Pere Marquette renovation. And the Civic Center expansion. And the museum. And the new Cat headquarters. And One Technology Plaza. And Riverfront Village. And….

City of Peoria

The End

22 Comments

Here lies PeoriaChronicle.com. 2005-2013. May you rest in peace.

The world will little note nor long remember what was said here. But I had a great time writing, reading, and conversing. It was fun while it lasted, and I appreciate all the friendships and support I have received during my brief sojourn here in cyberspace. Thank you.

Perhaps one day I will come back and write again, but for now I’m too involved at home, at work, and at school to devote any more time to this endeavor. Just writing this good-bye note is wearing me out.

God bless you all, and have a very happy new year!

Sincerely,
C. J. Summers

City of Peoria, Streets

Why a pedestrian bridge over Main is a bad idea

34 Comments

On Thursday, the City of Peoria held a public meeting to discuss ways to redesign the intersection of Main and University. A hundred-year-old water main recently broke there, and while patching has been done, there need to be more extensive repairs made that requires the whole intersection be rebuilt. Since it’s being redone anyway, this seems like the right time to talk about ways it can be improved — to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak. Redesigns of things are good for the most part, they bring a new air around them, a new essence to be more exact, if you are looking to have a new and attractive air you should seriously think about accompanying your diet with weight loss supplements.

One of the suggestions made at the meeting was to construct a pedestrian bridge. The Journal Star reported it this way:

But to the pleasant surprise of [Public Works Director Mike] Rogers, some forum attendees advocated pedestrian overpasses, perhaps positioned away from the intersection, as a way to improve traffic flow.

“Nobody has to stop driving — just go over the bridge across the street,” said Jose Lozano, a Bradley professor and area resident. “It’s safer for drivers and pedestrians, and a lot cheaper.”

With all due respect, this is a terrible idea. Here’s why:

  1. Motorists still have to stop driving. The contention that “nobody has to stop driving” is a real puzzler. For traffic not to stop, it would take more than a pedestrian bridge — it would take a vehicular bridge that separates the grade of Main and University, allowing Main street traffic to travel over or under University, in order to allow traffic to flow unimpeded. Short of that, there’s still going to be an intersection, and it’s still going to be signalized. And providing for safe navigation of that intersection will still need to be done.
  2. It doesn’t make the street safer for pedestrians. First of all, we have to think of the street and not merely the intersection in isolation. Building a pedestrian bridge and giving traffic the idea that “nobody has to stop driving” will put pedestrians who don’t use the pedestrian bridge at risk, such as those who cross Main at Maplewood or cross University at Bradley Avenue. They’re not going to walk all the way to Main and University to take the pedestrian bridge. They will continue to cross at grade, and encouraging faster traffic will put their safety at risk. And, let’s face it, many college students (or professors) are not going to go out of their way to use a pedestrian bridge when the street is only sixty feet wide, and especially where there’s a walk signal. And if you’ve been involved in an accident, then you might need an injury lawyer to get the proper compensation for your injuries; this is further explained on the website. If you’re working there on a construction project, that makes you more accident-prone. This will require a construction injuries lawyer when it happens.
  3. It doesn’t make the street safer for bicyclists. The intersection needs to be redesigned not only to make things safer for pedestrians, but to make things safer for all users. That includes bicyclists and motorcyclists, which would not benefit at all from a pedestrian bridge no matter where it is placed. Motorcyclists should always have the contact information of an attorney for motorcycle accidents just in case anything happens to them. Encouraging faster traffic where there are already narrow lanes and even narrower sidewalks will put their safety at risk. If a bicyclist is hit in an accident, he/she can contact a manhattan bicycle accident lawyer for legal help.
  4. It doesn’t make the street safer for the disabled. You can’t ride your wheelchair up the stairs to a pedestrian bridge and back down the other side. Unless they’re going to make the pedestrian bridge handicapped-accessible, which seems like it would be a challenge given the space constraints in that area (ramps? elevator?), the street will be made even more hostile to the disabled who try to traverse it.
  5. It doesn’t make the street safer for cars. There are no small number of truck accidents at this intersection. Even if all pedestrians used the proposed bridge, it would not make the intersection safer for vehicles which would arguably pass through the intersection even faster if there were no pedestrians to worry about. Also, if the pedestrian bridge were not enclosed, it would give delinquent children an easy place to drop objects onto cars that pass beneath.
  6. It perpetuates the myth that the public right of way is for cars only. The impetus for this forum was a presentation on “complete streets” that was given to the City Council a couple of meetings ago. The whole idea behind “complete streets” is that streets are a public right-of-way, and as such they are for everyone, not just motorists. According to the National Complete Streets Coalition website:

    Complete Streets are streets for everyone. They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work….

    Creating Complete Streets means transportation agencies must change their approach to community roads. By adopting a Complete Streets policy, communities direct their transportation planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation. This means that every transportation project will make the street network better and safer for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists – making your town a better place to live.

    A pedestrian bridge completely misses the mark of this vision. It perpetuates the idea that the right-of-way is primarily, if not solely, the domain of automobiles, which are presumed to have a natural right to unimpeded travel, and all other users of the roadway are intruders. This kind of thinking needs to stop.

    The right-of-way is public land and pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and the disabled have just as much right of access to it as motorists, and we need to learn how to share the right-of-way as equals. That’s the kind of vision this intersection reconstruction should be striving for.

A better alternative that was presented at the meeting is the idea of a raised table. In this scenario, the whole intersection is raised, which will require cars to slow down in order to enter and exit the intersection. This makes the intersection safer for everyone, and also makes the street safer. When the light turns yellow at an intersection, there are always those motorists (I’ve even done it myself, I admit) who speed up to make the light rather than slow down. A raised intersection would virtually eliminate that. Cars approaching the intersection would always have to slow down regardless of what color the light is.

Whatever solution is found for the intersection, it should balance the needs of all users and take the entire context of that intersection into consideration. A pedestrian bridge fails on all counts. It should be eliminated from consideration.

City Council, City of Peoria

Who will get Sandberg’s seat?

51 Comments

I considered throwing my name in the running for Gary Sandberg’s seat. However, after talking it over with my family, I decided this just isn’t the right time (not that I had any illusions of actually being chosen, but I believe you shouldn’t apply for something unless you really are willing to serve).

There is no shortage of other applicants, however. Here are the 31 people who submitted their resumes:

  • Denene Ricks
  • Ken Goldin
  • Randy Ray
  • Thomas Stevens
  • Conrad Stinnett III
  • Harry Block
  • Alma Brown
  • Jody Hoerr
  • John D. Marter, Jr.
  • Patrick Williams
  • Kyie Hess
  • Robert J. Rivoli III
  • Jeff Stauthammer
  • Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald
  • Monty Spivey
  • Joseph B. VanFleet
  • Brad Douglas
  • Martha Ross
  • Amy Eckardt
  • Martin Deters
  • Brett Kolditz
  • Katherine Coyle
  • Clyde E. Gulley, Jr.
  • Todd A. Dennhardt
  • Patti Sterling-Polk
  • Tara Gerstner
  • Elizabeth Jensen
  • Thomas Angelo
  • Franklin L. Renner
  • Andre Williams
  • Bill Spears

Interesting list. Notable applicants: A couple of former council members who didn’t run for reelection the last time (Gulley, Spears); a current District 150 school board member (Ross); former city attorney (Ray); recent council also-rans (Sterling-Polk, Williams); former City of Peoria Communications Manager Alma Brown; and neighborhood advocate and “Friend Of Peoria Chronicle” Conrad Stinnett.

Notable omission: Patrick Sullivan didn’t throw his hat in the ring.

You can read the resumes of the applicants on the City’s website by clicking here. The council has 60 days to choose a successor. Any wagers on who will get the nod?

City of Peoria, Open Meetings Act

City apparently violates Open Meetings Act; “watchdog” media don’t question it

15 Comments

I was dumbfounded to read this in the “watchdog” press this morning (emphasis added):

City Manager Patrick Urich confirmed Friday afternoon that the City Council ordered funding for Officer Jeff Wilson’s legal fees withdrawn as part of the marathon executive session Tuesday night….

The city decided to continue funding Wilson’s legal fees in June when Nicholson filed for an extension of the no stalking order. That decision apparently was overturned by the council on Tuesday during the executive session.

What’s wrong with this picture? If it’s being accurately reported, it’s a blatant violation of the Open Meetings Act, which requires any final action by a public body to be made in open session. Executive session is for discussion purposes. If the City Council is taking a vote or making any kind of decision (i.e., final action) as a public body on anything — including matters of legal funding or non-funding — it must take such vote in open session at a properly-noticed meeting.

There are legal ramifications to this that can impact the City. According to the Open Meetings Act: “No final action may be taken at a closed meeting. Final action shall be preceded by a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted” (5 ILCS 120/2e). If the City were sued over this violation, the court could “declar[e] null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act” (5 ILCS 120/3c). All of this adds up to more legal fees for the City, which means more taxpayer money being spent.

That the City would play fast and loose with the Open Meetings Act is, alas, no surprise. But I can’t believe this is being reported by the “watchdog” press so matter-of-factly, completely without question, as if this is standard operating procedure. The Open Meetings Act is often skirted via legal loopholes, and the Journal Star turns a blind eye to such shenanigans, even though such skirting is clearly not in the public’s interest. Yet here is not a legal loophole, but an obvious, blatant, and admitted violation.

Did this not raise any red flags at 1 News Plaza?строителство на къщи

City of Peoria, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Wal-Mart wants Peoria Stadium for new Super Center

53 Comments

walmart-supercenterPEORIA — Attorneys for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., have notified the City of Peoria, the Peoria Park District, and Peoria Public Schools (District 150) that their client wants to purchase “a portion of Peoria Stadium on War Memorial Drive … for the construction and operation of a Walmart Super Center.”

The letter states that they have read the recent Peoria Journal Star articles on public reaction to selling the stadium site, and that they are “committed to working with each of the public bodies to arrive at a mutually beneficial development.”

Wal-Mart proposes that the school district sell the entire 76-acre site to the City of Peoria. The City would then sell a portion of the site, adjacent to War Memorial Drive and New York Avenue, to Wal-Mart for them to construct their Super Center. Another portion of the land, “within the Stadium Site closer to Lake Street,” would be leased to the Park District to satisfy terms of the Park District’s grant from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Any remaining parcels would be sold.

Wal-Mart also proposes that the City of Peoria create a business district for the entire stadium site. A business district is an economic development/incentive program under state law. Incentives include reimbursing a business a portion of the cost of redeveloping land within the district, rebating occupation taxes, and even levying taxes within the business district for the purposes of redevelopment. The City currently has such a district downtown called the Hospitality Improvement Zone Business Development District; an extra 1% tax is collected in the HIZ BDD to help pay for the Pere Marquette redevelopment and Courtyard by Marriott construction.

Walmart-Peoria-Stadium Letter (PDF)

City of Peoria

Three City of Peoria departments consolidated

10 Comments

PEORIA — The City of Peoria has consolidated the Planning & Growth Management, Inspections, and Economic Development departments into the newly-christened Community Development department. City Manager Patrick Urich has appointed Ross Black as director. Black was formerly the interim Planning & Growth Management director. According to a recent Issues Update:

The three [former] departments had a combined total of 51 employees during the 2011 budget year. The 2013 budget authorizes the new department to have a total of 37 employees; a 27% reduction in staff. With new procedures that have already been put in place and with an ongoing program targeted at identifying and implementing efficiencies, the new Community Development Department will be able to provide enhanced service to the community with far fewer employees than in past years.

The new Community Development Department will continue to provide the same suite of services that were provided under the prior three departments. These services include planning, zoning, mapping & analysis, neighborhood development, grants management, code enforcement, building inspections, economic development, and real estate management.

The new department will also have two assistant directors. Joe Dulin, former interim Inspections director, will fill one of the positions. The other position, which will focus on economic development, is expected to be filled by early second quarter.

My Take: So we’ve combined three departments, but we still have three management-level employees, each overseeing one of the three former areas. Sounds like an exercise in semantics. And does anyone really believe that we’re not going to see a drop in service as a result of this supposed 27% reduction in staff? Speaking of this “reduction,” isn’t it interesting that they compared proposed 2013 staffing to 2011 levels instead of 2012 (current) levels? Curious as to what the 2012 levels are? I’ll tell you: 33. So the new 2013 level of 37 employees is actually an increase of four employees, or 11%. (It’s better at budget time to give the impression you’re cutting, even if you’re not really.)

Nevertheless, that’s way down from ten years prior:

Department FY 2002 FY 2012 Change Pct
Planning & Growth 25 12 -13 -52%
Inspections 54 20 -34 -63%
Economic Development 8 1 -7 -88%
Total 87 33 -54 -62%

These decreases in staffing are going so well that the City (in addition to adding staff while pretending they’re cutting it further) is now seriously considering outsourcing code enforcement due to lack of performance. This must be part of that “new and strong foundation upon which we can build for the future of our city” that Mayor Ardis talked about in his State of the City address this past January.

Amtrak, City of Peoria

Replay: Why train service needs to be to Chicago, not Normal

47 Comments

Speaking of bad ideas, a recent Word on the Street article says that local officials are still pursuing the foolhardy idea of getting a commuter train to Bloomington instead of a direct Amtrak route to Chicago. Rather than re-explain in different words why this is such a bad idea, I’m just going to reprint an earlier article I wrote on the subject (original post here):

The old Peoria-to-Bloomington commuter train idea is apparently still on the table over at the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Let’s go over this again:

Nobody wants to take a train to Bloomington. The only reason anyone would ever take a train to Bloomington is to continue on to Chicago or St. Louis. And if their ultimate destination is elsewhere, they’ll just drive to Bloomington to catch the train. Bloomington has free parking and virtually no traffic congestion. So a Peoria-Bloomington route is doomed to fail.

Peoria to Chicago, on the other hand, would be a heavily-traveled route. Since Chicago would be the ultimate destination for most train trips anyway (they’re a major Amtrak hub, unlike St. Louis), it makes sense to have a direct route from Peoria. Those in the tri-county area could avoid the commute to Bloomington to catch the train, as well as avoiding the traffic congestion and high cost of parking in Chicago.

Look at it this way: imagine we’re talking about air service instead of train service. Can you imagine anyone seriously suggesting that the best we could do is to offer commuter flights to Bloomington for those who wanted to continue on to Chicago (or any other destination)? With a layover? Where you have to switch planes and transfer your own bags? Would anyone buy a ticket on that flight? No. And they won’t take a commuter train to Bloomington, either.

We need our legislators to start fighting for Peoria transportation options instead of fighting against them. You would think we’d be in a great position having a home-town boy as Secretary of Transportation, and yet LaHood is the biggest obstacle. He’s never supported train service for Peoria. In fact, he’s been downright ornery opposing it. Why? Does Caterpillar not want train service to Peoria or something? And what about Durbin? He supported the Quad Cities in their effort to get passenger rail service–why isn’t he doing more to push Peoria’s effort? Where are our advocates?

The Greater Peoria Area is the third-largest metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in the state. There’s demand for passenger rail service here. Instead of the Illinois Department of Transportation giving away millions of dollars to build new and unsustainable roads through cornfields (Orange Prairie Road extension, Pioneer Parkway extension), why don’t they put that money toward a responsible and sustainable mode of transportation that would help the whole region: direct passenger rail service from Peoria to Chicago?

лак за паркет