Category Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria

City wants its oldest commercial building to be commercial again

4 Comments

Peoria Riverfront Visitors CenterThe city wants to see a private retail business occupy Peoria’s Riverfront Visitor’s Center:

The City of Peoria and the Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau (PACVB) operate the Riverfront Visitors Center. Conveniently located on the Peoria Riverfront off of 1-74, the Riverfront Visitors Center is a great first stop for visitors to the area. The Riverfront Visitors Center is housed in the former John Schwab Grocery that was built by John Schwab in 1852; the pre-Civil War building is the city’s oldest commercial building. In 1997 the building was renovated to recreate the 1850s grocery store and it was moved to the Peoria Riverfront as the Riverfront Visitors Center.

The City of Peoria and the PACVB are interested in returning the city’s oldest commercial building to its previous use by recreating the 1850s grocery store. We are looking for a private sector partner to share space with the Riverfront Visitors Center and to operate a small retail operation in the building. The store would have the ambiance and sentimental feel of the 1850s and continue to be a place where visitors could come and get information about the City of Peoria.

If you’ve ever been in the visitors center, you know that it’s not just small — it’s tiny. So what kind of business are they thinking would be a good fit for this 1850s-era building?

There is a large outdoor pavilion that is suitable for tables. The inside space on the first floor is small but there are a number of possible ways to fit the retail operation into the building. Proposals in the nature of an old time ice cream parlor, coffee shop or the sale of soda, hotdogs, pastries, etc. [emphasis mine] will be looked upon favorably.

Not a bad idea. It would get the building on the tax rolls, and it would be another amenity on the riverfront. I like it.

You know what would really make it successful, though? If close by — say, on the Sears block — there were apartments or condos. People aren’t going to come from Dunlap (or even Fake Dunlap) to downtown to have some ice cream, but people who live downtown will. And since museum officials have assured us that their patrons will not walk across the street (hence the absolute necessity of on-site parking for the museum to be successful), we know they’re not going to support it.

The more people you have living downtown, the more successful retail businesses, restaurants, etc., are going to be.

Caterpillar, City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Museum Partners tip their hand: retail unlikely

15 Comments

PRM LogoThis week’s council agenda has a fascinating account of the city’s efforts to negotiate with the museum partners and Caterpillar over changes they want to make to their development agreement for the Sears block. They never reached consensus:

The Museum wanted total control over development of the retail space. Conversely, we believe that the City’s Office of Economic Development is in a better position to market and negotiate the deal. It was clear from this meeting that the real issue was the Museum wants architectural and functional (what the building could be used for) control. We suggested that a rendering could be included that would define the architecture; however, the Museum declined that alternative. It was even mentioned by a representative of the Museum that perhaps the idea of commercial/retail needed to be reevaluated. [emphasis mine] We advised them that was a Council decision. The architectural discussion also mentioned the possibility of extending the plaza over the retail/commercial space. We have attached the original site plan presented in February, 2006. While this is a wonderful idea and is what was originally proposed by the Museum, it will not be financially affordable as a standalone project. We agree that the function needs to be compatible with the Museum (i.e. no adult entertainment uses), however, believe acceptable function can be defined. The discussion then moved to the issue of parking (i.e. where would these individuals park). Riverfront Village was discussed as one option for parking. It appears that a concern of the Museum is use of the parking developed to support this project. [emphasis mine]

We offered, as a follow up to that meeting, to allow the Museum to have exclusive development rights for three years following completion of the Museum with the City’s Office of Economic Development having development rights after that time. If the property was developed by the City, architectural and functional control would be determined by City Council. The Museum declined that offer. [emphasis mine] The City could still recommend tenants during the first three years.

What do you think? Does it sound like the Museum/Caterpillar is seriously interested in developing retail along Water street? First, they floated the idea of getting rid of retail altogether. That’s an indication of how committed they are. At best they don’t care whether it’s there or not; at worst they have no intention of developing it and are including it in the plan for appearance’s sake.

Next they bring up parking. Now let me ask you, why is this an issue? There’s going to be on-street parking along the museum side of Water, there’s already on-street and lot parking across Water, and museum square itself is getting a parking deck. This was the configuration that Cat and the museum partners agreed was adequate when the museum was larger and all else was equal. Why, now that the museum is shrinking would parking for retail somehow become a problem? Setting aside the fact that there’s a glut of parking downtown making the new deck completely unnecessary in the first place, the mere fact that the museum is significantly smaller should lower concerns about adequate parking — unless the museum is looking for ways to put the kibosh on the retail element.

Finally, the city offers to give them exclusive development rights for three years following completion of the museum — if all goes according to the new plan, that would be years 2011-2014. But the museum folks rejected that idea. That tells me that they lack confidence that they’re going to be able to develop it in that time frame. Now remember that museum officials believe that they’re going to get 360,000 people a year visiting the museum. With all that traffic, and with low lease rates (the museum agreed to lease the retail space for $1/year), they don’t believe they can develop 15,000 square feet within three years? How many years do they think it will take? Until 2015? 2020? The fifth of never?

It all adds up to a decided lack of interest on the museum’s part in developing the retail. They don’t want to do it, and they don’t want the city to do it either. They apparently prefer the whole museum block be dedicated to the museum and Cat visitor’s center. That would be the worst of all scenarios. The block needs more mixed use development, not less. It needs a residential element added, not the retail element removed.

If the council is serious about wanting retail development on that block (and I think they are), they should reject this amendment.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

School consolidation could lower property values

3 Comments

While the city explores using its enterprise zone to help incentivize reinvestment in older neighborhoods, any potential benefit may be undermined if the school district continues to consolidate and realign its neighborhood schools.

District 150 tells the Journal Star that in order to use $32 million in Health Life Safety bond money, they’ll have to close not only White and Glen Oak, but Kingman and Irving schools as well. That has the district contemplating replacing all four schools with one big building:

The new school was originally supposed to house students from Glen Oak and now-closed White Middle School. But [District treasurer Guy] Cahill said Wednesday it could also potentially serve as a replacement school for Irving and Kingman. He and district spokeswoman Stacey Shangraw also left open the possibility of more than one school being built.

I hope they’re more than open to the possibility of building more than one school; I think they should advocate it. According to a study published in the Journal of Urban Economics (2000), “disrupting neighborhood schools reduces house values by 9.9%, all else being equal.” While the authors don’t specifically study the reasons why changing boundaries and closing schools lowers home values, they have a pretty good hypothesis: “by making it harder for parents to get involved, it harms the quality of schools. It also makes it more difficult for students to participate in after-school activities relative to the case where they can walk to and from the school.”

Lower home values wouldn’t just be bad news for the city, it would also hurt the school district itself, since it relies heavily on property taxes for funding. In their attempt to save money through consolidation, it may turn out that the school board actually loses revenue because of it.

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 of Peoria, Waste Management

Peoria should incentivize recycling

17 Comments

Recycle SymbolMy wife has been recycling things like newspapers, glass, and steel cans by taking them to public bins behind Kroger on Sterling or the old Festival Foods at Northpoint, or sometimes just handing the garbage to a junk removal company. But these places don’t take other recyclable items such as plastic, cardboard, phone books, or magazines. There was also a place downtown called Erlichman’s where you could drop off your phone books and magazines.

Being the good conservationist she is, my wife called Erlichman’s to find out if they or a junk removal Bakersfield service took cardboard and plastic. That’s when she found out that they had been bought out by Midland Davis Recycling, and they do take cardboard, but not plastic. That was the sort-of good news. The bad news is that they closed their Peoria store, leaving only Pekin (south of the jail) as a drop-off location.

Well, that’s a little far to drive to recycle. So, my wife called every other recycling place in Peoria, only to find out no one takes plastic, nor do they take cardboard from residents (although some would take cardboard from businesses).

So, as a last resort, she e-mailed Waste Management (WM), Peoria’s garbage service provider, with a list of questions about their recycling service. She asked what they recycle, and they responded that they recycle “all basic items.” Not helpful; she e-mailed a follow-up question to get a little more detail on what “basic items” meant. It turns out, WM recycles plastic, steel cans, newspaper, magazines, and phone books — even junk mail — but not cardboard. Ironically, the standard footer on their e-mails touted the benefits of recycling cardboard — something they don’t recycle here. When she asked why they don’t recycle cardboard, they said that was a decision made by the local drop-off point for recycling.

The e-mail also said that they pick up once a week. Not true. They pick up every other week.

It gets better: as many of you know, you have to pay extra for recycling in Peoria. Of course, garbage collection is paid for from two sources already: property taxes and the $6/month garbage fee that gets tacked on our water bills. But even with all that revenue, they’ll only dump your stuff in the landfill. If you want your stuff recycled, you have to pay an additional $3.25 per month for which they bill you directly on a quarerly basis.

If you didn’t know better, you’d think Peoria was actively trying to discourage people from recycling. Other communities make recycling the priority. For instance, in Morton, recycling is a basic service, but you pay extra for regular garbage pick-up by the canful. You have to buy stickers — kind of like a postage stamp (I like to think of it as mailing your garbage to the landfill).

That kind of system rewards recycling because there’s an incentive to reduce landfill waste. In Peoria, there is an incentive to put all your recyclable items in the landfill. Meanwhile, the solid waste landfill in Edwards is filling up. WM’s contract is up in 2009 — can it be renegotiated to incentivize recycling?

City of Peoria, Traffic

More info on the Coves controversy

1 Comment

The developer of the Coves at Charter Oak wants to put up a gate across a little road called Sedley that connects his new subdivision with the older Vinton Highlands subdivision. As I stated in a previous post, there was no mention in the council communication of what the “neighborhood concerns” were that would necessitate the installation of a gate to separate the subdivisions. In fact, it doesn’t even specify which neighborhood(s) had the concerns.

At the council meeting Tuesday night, Councilman Bill Spears said that it was his understanding that Vinton Highlands residents wanted it closed. Spears explained that when the annexation agreement was being negotiated, he received numerous complaints from one resident of Vinton Highlands whose property is on the dead-end portion of Sedley, and a petition with 25 Vinton Highlands signatures wanting to keep the road closed. (For the record, there are roughly 250 homes in the subdivision and the neighborhood association hasn’t met in the last three years.)

So why was the road built, you may wonder. Well, the fire department and city staff wanted there to be two access points for the purposes of fire protection, so the road was built by the developer as part of the annexation agreement. Fire Chief Tomblin admits that it would be very rare that they would have to use that access point, but it is needed in case of emergency.

Then there’s this letter from Mike Stauffer, the developer, to Bill Spears dated June 20. It states:

Thank you very much for your assistance in obtaining approval of the proposed access control gate for the north end of the Coves at Charter Oak subdivision. The existing Weaver Ridge and Vinton Highlands neighborhood associations and the future residents of the Coves will be well-served with reduced traffic and safer intersections because of this action.

So now it appears that Weaver Ridge also wanted the road blocked. That wasn’t mentioned at the council meeting Tuesday night. What difference does it make to the folks in Weaver Ridge? According to the letter, they’re concerned about traffic volume and safety at intersections. Let’s consider those for a second. Here’s a map of the area in question:

Vinton Highlands and The Coves map

The part outlined in blue is Vinton Highlands, and the red outline shows The Coves. Right in the middle of where the two meet is Sedley and where they want to put the gate. To the south, you see where The Coves’ main street, Mooring Way, intersects with Charter Oak Road. Directly south is Weaverridge. Just take a moment to get your bearings there.

Now, tell me: what traffic/safety issues are there here? Clearly none. Sedley isn’t exactly what one would call a shortcut. Nobody’s going to get from Frostwood or Big Hollow to Charter Oak or Weaverridge any quicker by wending their way through these two subdivisions. Not only that, the street isn’t currently open, so there’s no historical data to back up their assertion, nor has a traffic study been done. So that argument doesn’t wash.

Part of the problem with this issue is that the city has no set policy to use as a guide. Other neighborhoods that have gotten diverters or other obstructions installed got them in spite of the city’s regulations. So maybe this would be a good time for the city to develop a policy regarding the obstruction of public streets. Perhaps the Traffic Commission can help with that task.

The Council on Tuesday sent this issue to the Traffic Commission to be vetted. That process will include a public hearing.

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.