Category Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria, Comcast

Comcast gets raked over the coals

18 Comments

Over 60 people showed up at City Hall on Tuesday evening for a chance to tell Comcast what they think of the city’s only cable provider. Comcast representatives Debra Piscola (Director of Government Affairs) and John Niebur (District Director) listened as over 30 residents — including six city council members — expressed frustration over service and pricing issues.

The most common complaints were:

  • No local customer service — When you need to call Comcast, there is no local number available; you have to call an 800 number and talk to a call center in some other city. There were also complaints over how long it takes these call centers to answer the phone.
  • Channel movement — C-SPAN2, EWTN, and other analog channels were reassigned to digital channels, and some channels such as National Geographic were reassigned to most expensive cable packages.
  • Pricing — When Comcast first took over Insight, they said they weren’t going to raise prices, then immediately raised prices. Then they reassigned channels, some to more expensive tiers, causing many residents to feel they were paying more for less service. One person reported that he was quoted one price, but when he threatened to switch to a satellite service, he received a lower price, prompting him to ask what the real price is. Another resident similarly asked for “transparency in pricing.”

One person requested the ability to choose which cable channels he wanted and pay only for those (also known as “a la carte” pricing). Another complained that he was given a 12-hour service window, meaning he had to wait around his house from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. for the cable company to do a simple installation; the cable technician showed up at 7:50 p.m.

The Comcast representatives answered some questions, but mostly just thanked the audience for expressing their concerns and promised to address those concerns in their franchise agreement negotiations with the city.

City council members in attendance were Clyde Gulley (1st District), Bob Manning (3rd District), Bill Spears (4th District), Pat Nichting (5th District), Ryan Spain (at-large), George Jacob (at-large), and Eric Turner (at-large). Gulley left early, but the rest of the council members in attendance said that they get numerous complaints from constituents regarding the cable company. Spain said the number of complaints he gets rivals the number of people calling about more expensive and controversial issues like the CSO project and the recent downtown hotel plans.

Turner said that he wouldn’t support a new franchise agreement if service issues aren’t addressed and improved. Unfortunately, that’s somewhat of an empty threat, since state law allows cable companies to get franchise agreements directly through the state, bypassing local municipalities completely. City Attorney Randy Ray says the public hearing Tuesday night is one advantage of having a local franchise agreement — if Comcast were to get a state franchise, local residents likely would have to trek to Springfield for any public hearings regarding cable service.

Original plans were to bring a new franchise agreement to the council for approval at the next scheduled meeting. However, due to the “level of dissatisfaction,” Ray said it may take a little longer to negotiate an agreement that the council will support. The last 20-year franchise agreement expired in April 2006, but has been temporarily extended multiple times during negotiations for a new agreement.

City of Peoria, Comcast

Tell Comcast what you think of them

34 Comments

I have to laugh whenever I hear Comcast commercials “warning” people that satellite TV service may pixellate or completely lose its signal when there’s inclement weather. I laugh because Comcast can do that in all types of weather! Not only that, some channels may disappear because they’ve moved them from an analog channel to a digital one. And if you call to complain, you don’t get to talk to anyone locally, you have to call an 800 number and deal with some completely unhelpful wage slave in Who-knows-where.

Why not cancel Comcast service, you ask? A couple of reasons. First, they’re the only place you can see local access channels, including the Peoria City Council meetings and school board meetings. Second, they can be the cheapest service you can get, if you get Basic Cable. I only pay about $15/month. But just because I don’t pay big bucks for a digital cable package doesn’t mean I should get shoddy reception and poor service.

So, I think I’ll be attending this meeting:

The City of Peoria and Comcast Cable will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, February 3, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will take place at Peoria City Hall, in City Council Chambers (Room 400).

The purpose of the public meeting is to discuss the current contract with Comcast and the services provided by them. This will be an opportunity for the public to make comment and voice any concerns regarding Comcast.

The public is welcome and encouraged to attend.

City of Peoria, Peoria Mayor

Words most used in Ardis’s speech

25 Comments

I saw the Chicago Tribune use this feature called TagCrowd on Blagojevich’s speech, so I thought I’d use it for Mayor Ardis’s State of the City speech. It’s not a particularly meaningful feature, but it’s a fun novelty:

created at TagCrowd.com

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

LDC continues to go unenforced by Council

15 Comments

Tuesday night, the Peoria City Council decided twice not to enforce the Land Development Code (LDC). They made decisions that weren’t just minor variations to the LDC, but decisions that were a fundamental affront to the very intent of the LDC. In fact, they showed an ignorance of and contempt for the intent of the LDC. They have evidently never read the LDC nor the Heart of Peoria Plan on which it was based.

The two items on the Council’s agenda were:

  • New Taco Bell. The Taco Bell restaurant at 1811 N. Knoxville is going to be rebuilt. The developer is going to tear down the building and put up a new one. This would be the perfect opportunity to bring the property into compliance with the code. Yet Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken moved to approve the developer’s request to comply with none of the LDC — to be completely non-conforming. Why? Because he’s reportedly spending $1.8 million and because she thinks there are “problems” with the LDC. That latter reason is the latest rage, don’t you know. Just declare something “broken” or “a problem” (like the Historic Preservation Ordinance, for instance) and then you can completely disregard it until it’s “fixed.” What does Van Auken think is wrong with the code? Wait till you hear.

    The code calls for buildings to be built close to the street — preferably right up to the sidewalk — so that they’re more pedestrian friendly and so that they’re pushed further away from the residential neighborhoods that are behind the businesses, among other reasons. When the code was enacted, buildings that didn’t conform to the code (like Taco Bell) were grandfathered in. They could even make minor additions and renovations without having to bring the building into compliance in an attempt to be “business friendly.” But if they were to make major renovations — like tearing down and reconstructing the building — then they would have to bring it into compliance. Makes sense, right? They’re rebuilding the thing anyway, why not build it in compliance with the code? No doubt the code would have been roundly criticized if it required a building to be torn down and rebuilt (i.e., brought into compliance) whenever the owner wanted to make any minor change.

    Yet Barbara Van Auken turned that reasoning on its head Tuesday night. She said the code was unfair to require major renovations to trigger full compliance, but not minor renovations. It rewards those who slap up shoddy additions, but penalizes those who want to invest $1.8 million to put up a “state-of-the-art Taco Bell,” she explained. That wasn’t her intent when she voted to enact the LDC, she said.

    Thus, she voted to approve a brand new building construction that completely defies the LDC, not just in siting, but also the buffering from the neighborhood. Under the LDC, a masonry garden wall would have been required as a buffer. The Council said a repaired wooden fence was sufficient.

  • Expanded pet clinic. Demanes Animal Hospital at the corner of Wisconsin and Forrest Hill has bought up four properties around it and wants to expand. They’re not tearing down their building, but instead adding on to it. However, they want to site the addition in such a way that it doesn’t conform with its current zoning, called CN (neighborhood commercial). The CN district requires that the building addition come right up to the sidewalk and that parking be put in the rear of the building. Where the existing building does not front the sidewalk, a street wall that can be as short as 3 feet tall would need to be built to establish the street edge and provide buffering.

    Instead of asking for a variance from these requirements, the decision was made to do a complete end-run around the requirements by asking for the property to be rezoned CG (general commercial). There is no legal justification for rezoning this property CG, as I outlined in my letter to the Zoning Commission, which I forwarded to Third District Councilman Bob Manning as well.

    You see, when you ask for a zoning change, the Zoning Commission and Council need to consider that request apart from the current use or current plans. Why? Because once the zoning is changed, it applies not just to the current owner, but any future owners. If Mr. Demanes were to decide to move his practice, or if (God-forbid) he got hit by a bus and the clinic needed to close, the next property owner could use that property for any permitted use under CG zoning, which includes such neighborhood-friendly uses as a pawn shop, oil and lube shop, and car wash. The zoning designation requested is the most intense land use designation available under the LDC. This is clearly inappropriate in a densely-populated residential neighborhood. It’s also completely contrary to the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

    But the appropriateness of the zoning proper was never discussed. Instead, Mr. Manning tore a page form Ms. Van Auken’s playbook and criticized the CN requirements, saying they weren’t appropriate for this part of his district. They may be okay for Main Street (in the second district), but they’re not “one size fits all,” he said. So the Council decided to continue a pattern of development that has proven over the past 50 years to deteriorate the third district. The Council decided to continue a pattern of development that the citizens found so undesirable that they wanted to change the zoning code. The Council decided to continue a pattern of development that has been proven to destabilize neighborhoods, not revitalize them.

The Council decided to repudiate the Land Development Code. They apparently think change will come by doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. These aren’t isolated incidents, nor are they minor variances. Beginning with St. Ann’s right after the LDC was adopted, right up to the actions Tuesday night, the Council has consistently undercut the Land Development Code at every turn.

The Heart of Peoria Plan was adopted “in principle” in 2002, but it has yet to be adopted in practice, despite having been codified in the LDC.

City of Peoria

Midtown Plaza Cub Foods closing in March

52 Comments

The following info just hit my mailbox while I was home for lunch:

Mr. Curt Craig from Cub Foods in Minneapolis [said] they are closing the Midtown Plaza Cub Food Store. […] This will happen the first part of March, with the last employees leaving mid-March.

You remember Midtown Plaza. The City paid $5.5 million to clear the land (including knocking down old ladies’ houses on Dechman) required to make way for this project and made the area a TIF district after rejecting their own consultant’s report that said this was a bad deal for the City. They listened to the developer’s consultants instead.

The city’s consultant (Development Strategies, Inc.) predicted, according to a Journal Star editorial on 3/9/1999, that Cub Foods “would draw 90 percent of its customers from other city grocery stores.” Joseph’s consultants (Melaniphy & Associates, Inc.; Deloitte & Touche) predicted “43 percent of revenues would come from customers living outside the city” and that Cub Foods “would draw customers from a 10-mile radius.”

The city’s consultant was right. After Cub Foods opened, Thompson’s/Sullivan’s and John Bee both closed. With the loss of Cub Foods, where are East Bluff residents supposed to go for groceries now?

Also, will the city get a refund on that TIF money from the developer?

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, HOPC, New Urbanism

LDC misunderstood by developers

6 Comments

Attorney Bob Hall thinks the Land Development Code “certainly has a lot of bugs,” according to today’s Journal Star. But it doesn’t really. It just has a lot of things he or the developer he represents either doesn’t like or doesn’t understand, which is typical regardless of what zoning regulations are in place.

Still, some comments made by Mr. Hall deserve a response.

Hall said the reason [council deferred approving a variance for 741 W. Main] was because other requirements within the code were preventing the redevelopment from occurring.

One of those requirements focuses on the size of awnings required along Main Street. Hall said the zoning requirements maintain that an awning six-feet horizontally would have to go up.

“It would probably stretch out into Main Street,” he said.

Not quite. I went out today and measured. From the front of the building to the curb, it’s seven feet. A six-foot awning would do exactly what it’s supposed to do — cover the sidewalk to within a foot of the street. Awnings have a purpose, and it’s not to be merely decorative. They provide shade and shelter for pedestrians and patrons, as well as additional signage for the business. They’re also not required; the code simply says when you have them, they have to be a certain size. In any event, there’s nothing about the awning requirement that should be “preventing the redevelopment from occurring,” other than the developer just not liking it.

Also, Hall said there is no requirement for a street wall or any decorative fencing at newer developments at nearby properties, such as the Peoria NEXT Innovation Center.

“Newer” developments to be sure, but approved before approval of the Land Development Code took effect. Had the LDC been in place when those projects were approved, they would have had to follow the same guidelines.

But [Hall] said he has other clients wanting to redevelop in the city’s older neighborhoods and that the code’s detailed specifics are causing problems. For instance, Hall said Knoxville Avenue – where one of the developments is to occur – “should not have been included” as part of the land development code, which highlights the principles of New Urbanism to make older neighborhoods more pedestrian friendly.

“Knoxville is a thoroughfare,” Hall said. “New Urbanism is for neighborhood stuff.”

These statements illustrate the need for education, something the Heart of Peoria Commission was working on when it was unceremoniously disbanded. New Urbanism is not just about making older parts of town more walkable, nor is it restricted only to neighborhoods. The principles of New Urbanism were only applied to the older parts of Peoria because those were the bounds set by the city council for the Heart of Peoria Plan project. New Urbanism is a comprehensive philosophy of town planning that covers private and public space, commercial and residential areas, streets and thoroughfares. In fact, all these things have to work in concert with each other to create great places; it’s the dis-integration of these things that has caused many of our urban (and suburban) problems.

The Land Development Code is going to get challenges like this until developers understand the purpose behind it, adapt to it, and hopefully embrace it. It’s incumbent upon the Planning and Growth Department to provide this education and to defend the code — within reason, of course.

And here, I should mention that I’m not saying the code cannot ever be questioned. But challenges to the code must be made in context with the intent of the code. The street wall requirement, for example, was worth taking under consideration. There was some disagreement over where that requirement in the code came from — Ferrell-Madden claimed it was the architectural review committee that insisted on it, but one of the members of that committee claims it was Ferrell-Madden’s decision to include it. Ultimately, the ad hoc group that is reviewing the form-based code portion of the LDC, with input from Ferrell-Madden, decided to modify this provision, but only because such revisions could be done while still fulfilling the code’s intent.

2008 Campaign, City of Peoria, Weather

New snow plan has unintended consequences

13 Comments

It all looks good on paper:

The City of Peoria has not established a “Bare pavement” policy for each and every roadway. Bare pavement will dramatically increase our costs as well as negative environmental impacts. If a citizen will drive carefully for a few blocks to a roadway with a higher level of service, travel throughout Peoria can be made easier and safer. Balancing levels of service to user volumes is the most efficient use of Peoria’s tax dollars and minimizes damage to the environment.

The plan was executed to the letter this year, which resulted in excellent driving on primary routes and treacherous driving on residential streets. Many residential streets are a solid sheet of ice, but Public Works and the City Council are evidently okay with that level of “service.”

What the snow plan didn’t take into account was the effect this would have on service vehicles, like garbage trucks. Many residents haven’t had garbage pickup for two weeks now — an inconvenience any time of year, but certainly around Christmas when there is a lot of extra garbage. Here’s the latest press release from the city:

In response to the icy conditions on roads and alleys, Waste Management has suspended residential and commercial collection for today. Collections will resume tomorrow, Saturday, December 27th, for the routes scheduled for collection today.

The icy conditions on roads and alleys are due in no small part to the city’s planned neglect of them, per the snow plan. The icy conditions are so bad that even the city’s snow plows are having trouble getting through neighborhoods now. Here’s another press release:

City crews are treating residential areas with a sand/salt mix to increase traction. Progress is delayed due to most inclines, that will force the salt truck to back up the street to prevent sliding.

If the snow plows can’t get through without sliding, how well do you think the average motorist is able to navigate these streets to get to “a roadway with a higher level of service”? Snow plows, garbage trucks, even Journal Star delivery has been delayed due to the icy conditions.

My guess is that the snow plan was designed to handle snow, but not ice like we’ve had this year. Maybe the city should reevaluate the snow plan in light of these developments and establish an “ice plan” for the future.

2009 Campaign, City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

Beth Akeson to run for Third District council seat

77 Comments

I just received this e-mail from the vice-chairman of the Heart of Peoria Commission, Beth Akeson:

I have gathered the required signatures and completed the necessary paperwork to run for Peoria’s third district council seat.

These documents will be turned in tomorrow, December 15, 2008. I look forward to a positive campaign as I champion Peoria’s older neighborhoods, advocate for doing the right thing, for the right reason, in the right way.

In other correspondence, she also says she will be “an advocate for proactive policy.” Beth has served on the Heart of Peoria Commission since its inception in 2004, having been appointed by former Mayor Dave Ransburg. She ran unsuccessfully for a Peoria Board of Education seat in 2007. Beth has also contributed several guest editorials here at the Peoria Chronicle.

Current third district councilman Bob Manning recently announced he is not running for reelection. The only other candidate to formally announce a run for Manning’s seat is Peoria County Board member Tim Riggenbach. Candidates have until 5 p.m. Monday to file petitions, so more candidates may come forward.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

“Wonderful development” agreement raises questions (Updated 2x)

23 Comments

The proposed redevelopment agreement (aka “wonderful development”) for the Pere Marquette hotel was finally made public at 5:00 p.m. on Friday. Monday night, the council will be voting on it. Council members have to read all the details online because the hard-copy packets weren’t ready by the end of the day Friday. Talk about a fast track!

In reading the agreement, some things caught my attention, and I hope the council members consider these items carefully before voting. In fact, it would be better if they deferred this until their next meeting instead making a hasty decision, but I’m not holding my breath expecting that to happen. Anyway, here are my concerns:

1. The use of General Obligation Bonds

The nearly $40 million in city funding is proposed to be in the form of general obligation bonds instead of revenue bonds. Both types of bonds would be paid back out of revenue generated by the project, assuming the project is profitable. The catch comes if the project is (God-forbid) not profitable. General obligation bonds are backed by the full taxing authority of the city. So if the project goes south, the bonds get paid for out of the city’s general fund — that is, taxpayers assume the risk. Revenue bonds are backed by the hotel building itself (which is used as collateral) and/or a specified revenue stream (H taxes, for instance), so if the project goes south, bond holders would be able to foreclose on the hotel, but the city wouldn’t be obligated to settle up the debt out of the general fund. As a taxpayer, that makes me nervous.

The explanation given in the packet is a bit cryptic: “A revenue bond is not likely to be successful because there is no current revenue and, thus, no history on which to base a revenue stream. A revenue bond would almost certainly result in a higher interest rate for the City.” Perhaps someone out there with a finance background can explain this to me. I thought the lack of history for a revenue stream was precisely why revenue bonds had higher interest rates. Under the scenario presented, when would a municipality ever be able to utilize revenue bonds for new construction?

2. Optimistic occupancy projections

The developer of this hotel project is anticipating occupancy rates of 60% in 2012, 69% in 2013, 72% in 2014, and 74% in 2014 and beyond — best-case scenario. However, the developer also states that the hotel will be successful even under more conservative figures: 60% in 2012, 65% in 2013 and 2014, and 68% in 2015 and beyond.

The Pere Marquette had a 54% occupancy rate in 2005, according to published news reports. And in September 2006, a Civic Center Hotel Study was prepared by HVS Convention, Sports, & Entertainment Facilities Consulting. They were looking at building a new hotel immediately adjacent to the Civic Center that would add 250 rooms to the hotel market and compete with the Pere and other downtown hotels. The project being proposed now, of course, is an expansion of the Pere by 200 rooms (the addition of a new tower). Their market analysis concluded:

HVS estimates a stabilized occupancy of 67% for the proposed Civic Center Hotel. Although the subject property may operate at occupancies above this stabilized level, we believe it is equally possible for new competition and temporary economic downturns to force occupancy levels below this selected point of stability.

So, the stabilized occupancy rate prediction was 67% in 2006 — before we entered a recession — which is a point lower than the “conservative” stabilized rate the developer is now using for his projections — in the midst of a recession.

When this report was presented to the City Council, Bob Manning asked about that projected occupancy rate and whether it could support a 250-room hotel:

Discussion was held regarding the projected number of room stays and how the projections were determined. Council Member Manning expressed concern regarding how the occupancy rate was determined, which he felt would not support a 250-room hotel. Mr. Hazinski said he agreed and that was the reason the study projected a decrease in occupancy rates in the market. He said the market ran in the mid-sixties when it was doing well, and really could not be expected to do better than that.

Given this information, and the fact that we are in a recession, it would seem that the more conservative figures are closer to the truth. And if you look at the bond payment scenario based on those conservative figures, there’s not a whole lot of room for error. It looks like, if they miss their projections on those occupancy rates by even a little bit, they could be quickly operating in the red. Guess where the money comes from to make up the difference if that happens — money that could be used to pay police officers or fix streets and sidewalks.

Also, what’s the average room rate going to be? That seems like a reasonable piece of information to include, especially in financial predictions. It will make a difference when it comes to occupancy rates. If these rates are higher than the Embassy Suites and a newly-renovated Holiday Inn, will budget-minded conference-goers and their employers opt for cheaper room rates and forgo the luxury and convenience of an attached “headquarters hotel”?

3. Questionable comparisons.

In the Request for Council Action cover memo, Interim City Manager Henry Holling mentions several other hotel projects in Illinois that used government subsidies, including Normal, East Peoria, and Tinley Park. So I thought I’d look up a little info on those projects.

  • Normal Marriott — This project should give us pause. According to documents available on the Normal.org, “In July of 2004, the Town of Normal entered into a redevelopment agreement with Mr. John Q. Hammons of Springfield, Missouri pertaining to the construction of a full service Marriott Hotel and Conference Center along with a required parking structure…. [T]he total project cost was estimated by the developer to be approximately $43 million ($30 million-hotel; $8 million-conference center; $5 million-parking garage).” Normal’s subsidy was estimated to be about $13 million toward the project. However, by October 2006, the estimated cost of the project had risen dramatically to $72.6 million — a $29.6 million (68.8%) increase! That, of course, meant that the Town of Normal’s share also ballooned to $21.1 million. Despite that huge increase, their share of the overall investment was only 29%. Here in Peoria, the city’s share of the Marriott project would be 40%.

  • East Peoria Embassy Suites — In 2003, the plan was to build a publicly-owned conference center and a privately-owned but publicly-subsidized Embassy Suites. The developer was the same as in Normal — John Q. Hammons. Fortunately for East Peoria, the costs didn’t rise as much as they did for Normal, only going up to $60 million. Holling’s memo states, “The level of subsidy [being proposed in Peoria] is also similar to the level provided for the Embassy Suites in East Peoria, which was also approximately 40% of the total project costs.” Yes, but we’re comparing apples and oranges here. In East Peoria, their $25 million subsidy paid for 100% of the conference center with the rest going toward the hotel. $25 million is about 42% of $60 million. But if you look at East Peoria’s subsidy to the hotel alone, it only comes out to 27% ($13 million out of $48 million). In 2007, the city decided to lease the conference center to Hammons for a progressive annual fee. They use that money to pay off its construction cost ($12 million) plus maintenance and improvements instead of relying on what one East Peoria commissioner called “unpredictable net revenue.”

  • Tinley Park Convention Center with Holiday Inn Select — According to Mr. Holling, “Tinley Park built their center with substantial governmental assistance, and is preparing a major expansion.” In the context we’re talking about, that sounds a bit misleading. Yes, construction of their approx. $6 million publicly-owned convention center was funded 100% by a $7.5 million bond issue. But the adjacent Holiday Inn Select was built with little governmental assistance compared to Normal and East Peoria. The only governmental assistance that $15 million project received was inclusion in a TIF district and some assistance with land acquisition. The hotel plan actually predated plans for the convention center and was part of a development of 300 town homes, also included in the TIF district. The Chicago Tribune reported just this month (12/4/2008) that an expansion is planned: “Tinley Park owns the convention center and will invest more than $10 million in the project. The money will come from tax-increment finance revenues, which come from increased property value from a designated area.” The hotel is also expanding, but on its developer’s own dime. Mid-Continent Development and Construction, “which manages the [convention] center and owns the adjoining Holiday Inn Select…plans to invest $10 million into upgrades to the hotel, including 68 new rooms and a second kitchen to the six-story hotel.”

None of these projects approach the kind of deal being proposed in Peoria. The highest subsidy among these three initiatives was 29% of the total project cost. So why do we need to pay 40% in Peoria? Holling explains: “The Embassy Suites did fund the Conference center construction, but site acquisition and assembly was lower cost and no parking structure was required.” So, apparently, the reason why Peoria taxpayers need to pony up more money is to help with land acquisition ($22 million) and parking ($10 million). And of course the $5 million sky bridge. Those three things total about $37 million.

So, the question is, is it worth it? That’s the ultimate question that needs to be asked and answered Monday night.

UPDATE: Regarding land acquisition, the Journal Star reports the Pere Marquette is being acquired for $11 million. The information presented to the City Council indicates that total acquisition costs are $22 million. That means the remaining properties (Lasher building and Big Al’s entertainment complex) are being purchased for $11 million. Yet the fair market value of those buildings, according to the Peoria County Assessor (and the amount on which they pay property taxes), is only $1,353,540. Even going by recent sales amounts, the Lasher building (corner of Main and Monroe) sold in August of this year for $1.05 million, and the four parcels that make up Big Al’s entertainment complex sold in 2004 for $1.5 million. That’s a total of $2.55 million for all the buildings — yet the City is poised to purchase them from Al Zuccarini for $11 million. Plus, they’ve already facilitated his move to an as-yet-undisclosed location, likely to be 414 Hamilton Blvd., by changing their adult use ordinance. Wow. One would think with that kind of money (our tax money, by the way), Al could have found a place that complied with the adult use ordinance as it stood.

UPDATE 2: The Journal Star agrees with me. Excellent editorial. That new guy is working out okay. 🙂