Category Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

Quiz Show: Council candidates participate in Warehouse District test

2 Comments

Last night (3/22), the ten candidates for five city council at-large seats stood by easels with flipcharts on them, marker in hand, and answered questions compiled by the Warehouse District Association. It was fun, but it really was a test — a test to see how much the candidates know about the Heart of Peoria Plan, the proposed Land Development Code, and the Warehouse District. Their answers will be graded and, while the answers won’t be published, their scores will. It’s just one more tool in evaluating the candidates.

Only part of the time was spent writing answers on paper, however. Interspersed were three or four rounds of questioning that required the candidates to answer verbally. Here are some of the questions and answers (remember, these are going to be specific to the Warehouse District because that’s the audience for this forum):

Q: Where should the next major development be in the city?

  • Turner: Museum and CAT visitors center, Warehouse District and Eagle View area
  • Thetford: Downtown, older neighborhoods,
  • Spain: Downtown, riverfront, warehouse district, Renaissance Park
  • Sandberg: Within the 8,000-acre Heart of Peoria area

Q: Would you vote for the Warehouse District TIF if elected to the council?

  • Polk: Only if it’s not detrimental to District 150
  • Montelongo: “I would want some strings attached to that as well.” (didn’t specify what strings)
  • Jacob: Wants to complete the TIF study before making a final decision

Q: If elected, what value would you place on the Warehouse District?

  • Irving: Extremely high; development needed in this area, especially retail
  • Gillette: Important; outdoor malls, restaurants, night clubs, etc., needed to bring people to the area
  • Cassel-Fitzgerald: Very high; supports Warehouse District

Q: How would you fix the streets in the Warehouse District and Downtown?

  • Cassel-Fitzgerald: Procedures in place for owners to do something about the sidewalks; some streets need to be two-way; to some extent it depends on who moves there
  • Gillette: Return some streets to natural character (e.g., many downtown streets still have brick underlayment); change one-way streets to two-way; change Washington Street to three lanes
  • Irving: Change one-way streets to two-way; put in more ornamental landscaping; imperative that traffic be slowed down in order for Warehouse District to be successfully implemented
  • Jacob: Make one-way streets two-way; slow traffic down; create diagonal parking; realize that this effort will require significant investments in infrastructure

Q: What is the city council’s role in economic development in the Warehouse District?

  • Montelongo: “Set the tone” for business growth
  • Polk: Find as many venues to make the city as progressive as it can; use Warehouse District to bring tourism in; provide whatever the need to make this a thriving area
  • Sandberg: Adopt regulations that would promote investment; stand against development not in keeping with the vision for the Heart of Peoria Plan and Warehouse District

Q: (1) Have you ever walked the Warehouse District? (2) If so, do you think the city’s efforts to keep the streets/sidewalks clean and repaired is adequate?

  • Spain: (1) Yes; (2) No, a better job needs to be done in this area for the Warehouse District to be successful; consider the “hidden costs” of doing this (e.g., added costs to clear the sidewalks of snow in addition to the street)
  • Thetford: (1) Yes, portions of it; (2) Not as good as it should be, but better than some older neighborhoods; the city needs to work on the streets all over Peoria, not just in the Warehouse District
  • Turner: (1) Yes; (2) Visited warehouse districts in other cities, so he knows the vision; here, “we have a long way to go.”

Q: Will you encourage establishment of the arts as a vital part of the Warehouse District?

  • Turner: Yes; committed to Arts Partners
  • Thetford: “Without question”; has a minor in theater and has acted at Cornstock, so is committed to the arts; our arts community distinguishes Peoria from among other cities in Illinois
  • Spain: “Absolutely yes”; it is a critical part of our community; offered to have his jazz band come down and play a gig in the Warehouse District

Q: What do you think the [now-defunct] Riverfront Commission in the past accomplished?

  • Sandberg: It was a waste of money that destroyed our riverfront; the scale is wrong, the architecture is wrong; it is a barricade to our river [after Sandberg’s comments, the audience applauded unprompted — the only time this happened]
  • Polk: Disappointed in how our riverfront turned out; expected something different
  • Montelongo: Got things started, but outcome was misguided; didn’t meet expectations
  • Jacob: It’s easy to sit back and bash the Riverfront Commission’s work after the fact; yes, mistakes were made, but the opportunity now is to work with what we’ve got and come up with solutions; focus on the future

Q: What has the Heart of Peoria Commission (1) accomplished so far, and (2) what can they do in the future?

  • Irving: (1) They have brought forth the form-based code; (2) communicate, publicize, and come up with more ideas for drawing people into the older parts of town
  • Gillette: (1) They’ve completed basic studies on what can be done; (2) need to communicate and listen to the neighborhoods
  • Cassell-Fitzgerald: (1) Commission has not done what it could have done; there are no resolutions to their recommendations; (2) Work closer with neighborhood associations; network with other organizations

Keep in mind that these questions and answers are just pulled from my notes. Some of the candidates talk very fast, and I just tried to get the basic gist of what they were saying, with a quote here and there when I could get it. In fairness, they had to talk fast, because the pace of the Q&A time was pretty peppy.

I thought these questions and answers gave some insight into the candidates’ knowledge of the issues that are important to the Warehouse District, and also some idea of how they view the council’s role in development. Jennifer Davis of the Journal Star covered the event, as did Kim Carollo of HOI News.

City of Peoria, Insight Communications, State Legislation, Television

Almost a year later, and still no cable franchise agreement

8 Comments

Cable TVOn April 15, 2006, Peoria’s 20-year cable franchise agreement with Insight Communications expired. As of today, we still have no cable franchise agreement, but City Attorney Randy Ray is hopeful that we will soon. In an e-mail I received in response to my question on how negotiations were going, he said this:

Our attorney is working on what I hope is a final version [of the proposed new franchise agreement]. We are subject to being affected by pending legislation in Springfield.

That is one, long, drawn-out negotiation. No doubt the legislation to which Ray obliquely refers is H.B. 1500, the so-called “Cable and Video Competition Law of 2007.” It’s backed by telcom behemoth AT&T which wants to get into the cable TV business without having to negotiate franchise agreements with each municipality the way cable companies have done for the past 40 years.

Under H.B. 1500, a cable provider such as AT&T would apply not to the City of Peoria or the Village of Morton or any other local municipality for a cable franchise agreement to serve those communities, but rather to the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) to get franchise authorization. Furthermore, it would preempt home rule, meaning that it would strip municipalities of any authority to regulate use of their rights-of-way by cable operators (e.g., use of utility poles, underground easements, etc.), as they do through local franchise agreements now.

Opponents of the bill, such as the not-for-profit organization SaveAccess.org, say that it does a number of harmful things, including:

  • Shuts down Public, Educational and Government (PEG) stations around the state
  • Drops requirements that companies serve everyone
  • Weakens customer service protections
  • Harms fair competitions

Granted, those are all sound-bite sized talking points, but I think they’re true. Consider:

The first point is a reference to a provision in the bill that states, “Any public, education, or government channel provided under this Section that is not used by the franchising authority or local unit of government for at least 8 hours per day of non-repeat programming for 3 consecutive months may no longer be made available to the local franchising authority….” That’s a lot of public access programming to sustain. Insight provides channel 17 (Illinois Central College) and channel 22 (public/government access), and I don’t believe the two of them combined provide 8 hours/day of non-repeat programming. So I believe it’s fair to say the effect of the bill would indeed shut down PEG stations.

As far as it dropping requirements to serve everyone, local franchise agreements were always concerned with equity — with the same service being available throughout the city (see, for example, §5.1 of Peoria’s 1986 Cable Franchise Agreement). The bill as written would not require total coverage, and in fact would only require that by five years after rollout, 30% of households accessible to the cable operator’s service be low-income.

Since complaints about service would no longer be made locally, but to the state, I think there’s no question that it weakens customer service. Who do you think is going to be more responsive to your cable TV complaint: your city staffer/council rep or a state bureaucrat?

But the last point is the kicker. As a recent article in Multichannel News points out, “As currently written, the bill [H.B. 1500] would hold only incumbent cable operators to current franchises until their statutory end dates.” Indeed, §21-301(2) of the bill states, “Upon expiration of its current agreement, an incumbent cable operator […] shall obtain State authorization from the Commission pursuant to this Article and shall be subject to the provisions of this Article.”

And this may be one reason it’s taking so long to get a new franchise agreement between Insight and Peoria. Insight will want to protect themselves against signing a 10- or 20-year franchise agreement that is going to put them at a competitive disadvantage to AT&T, which will be deploying cable services under a state-granted franchise if this legislation is passed.

The bill has been assigned to the Telecommunications Committee, and there was a hearing on it today (3/22) in Springfield. There is a website set up specifically to oppose this bill called KeepUsConnected.org.

City of Peoria, St. Louis Cardinals

World Champion St. Louis Cardinals to display their trophy in Peoria Thursday

19 Comments

World Series TrophyI just read pjstar.com that the 2006 World Series trophy will be on display in Peoria Thursday (3/22):

From 4 to 7 p.m., the trophy will be at the U.S. Cellular store at 7714 N. Grand Prairie Drive, adjacent to The Shoppes at Grand Prairie.

For those Cubs fans who read my blog, I should probably explain: The World Series is a best-of-seven contest that’s played after the Cubs go home at the end of each season. The winner gets this handsome trophy pictured to the right, and gets to wear the title “World Champion” for a year.

The 2006 World Champions were the St. Louis Cardinals, and this is the 10th trophy they’ve collected over their magnificent and storied history.

City Council, City of Peoria

Thoughts about last night’s candidates forum

25 Comments

The Journal Star reports on a candidates forum that took place last night, sponsored by the Glen Oak Neighborhood Association, that I was unable to attend, unfortunately. As I was reading about it this morning, here are some random thoughts I had about it:

“It’s not (a decision) I was happy about [to downsize Fire Station 11], and I think everyone on the council would like to see the City Council come up with the money,” Thetford told the crowd. “But, I also challenge you, that happened in 2004. This is 2007. If that was a major priority of the council, there has been time to find the funding.”

Great diversion, shifting focus onto the current council. But forgive me for not following the logic. Thetford got us into the mess, the current council hasn’t been able to fix her mess yet, so we should reelect Thetford because…?

Only a few candidates voiced caution over the cost…. “We have to facilitate growth in the community so we’re able to pay for the services our citizens are clamoring for,” Spain said.

Thank you, Mr. Spain. You have provided in that short sentence the very reason I will not be voting for you. You see, it’s that kind of thinking that has gotten us to this place where we’re shoveling money into developers’ bank accounts, but not enough money for fire protection.

No, that statement is completely backwards. We should be providing basic city services in order to facilitate growth in the community. That’s the crux of the difference between what has been termed “progressive” candidates and “basic services first” candidates.

“In my brochure, I say that properly placed fire stations are key to a proper foundation,” said Dan Irving. “We need to start having those discussions right now. When it comes down to finding the money for it, it’s all about prioritization.”

Dan has it right. It is indeed all about prioritization. When the city provides first-class police protection to keep crime down, fully-staffed fire stations to protect citizens’ lives and property, and well-maintained infrastructure such as transportation corridors and sewers, that will be attractive to residents and businesses alike. And if further incentives are necessary to attract some businesses, that can be discussed — but those incentives should never come at the expense of basic city services.

City Council, City of Peoria

City jobs are fleeting

26 Comments

The City of Peoria owns a lot of large, specialized vehicles (snow plows, backhoes, graders, fire trucks, etc.), and thus, they employ mechanics to maintain its fleet as well as professional drivers for CDL Truck Driving Positions. Now the city is looking to possibly outsource this service and lay off its 11 fleet maintenance employees. City Manager Randy Oliver justified this course of action in his Request for Council Action:

During the 2007 budget review sessions Council asked staff to continually seek opportunities to reduce service delivery costs. Fleet maintenance, an internal service provider, was an area discussed as a possible service where the City could potentially reduce costs and/or enhance service by contracting with a private vendor. The attached RFP [request for proposal] calls for a vendor to complete all the current fleet maintenance services provided by the Fleet Management Division of Public Works and the Fire Garage in the Fire Department. The vendor would use the City’s current tools and facilities at Dries Lane and Fire Station 8. The City would retain ownership of all the major repair equipment. Smaller hand tools would be the responsibility of the vendor.

Contracting is something that many governmental entities are considering. Cities contract out services generally to reduce costs and/or improve services. Seeking proposals will also serve as a measure to compare costs between in-house and private service delivery. While a change in service delivery may be justifiable on the basis of any cost savings, as a practical matter, however, the cost savings should be sufficient to justify the organizational change. Many local government agencies use a cost savings threshold to determine whether the change is worthwhile. An attached spreadsheet is how staff would determine any cost savings.

This has caused a firestorm of controversy, complete with accusations of union busting. At last night’s council meeting, the council voted 6-5 to defer this discussion until May 8 (after the election, incidentally) “to give labor and management time to discuss possible cost savings,” according to the Jennifer Davis’s report for the Journal Star.

The employees, of course, feel that they’re uniquely qualified to provide this service for the city and should be retained. That’s a good argument to make, and they may be proven right. I don’t think that these employees will get dumped if some private company comes in a dollar less than what it costs to provide services in-house. I’m confident their experience will be taken into consideration.

The employees also don’t want to lose their jobs, of course. They point out that these are good, head-of-household jobs, which is true. Even neighborhood activist LaVetta Ricca sprang to their defense last night:

“When this council wants new TIF areas or money for businesses, you all say these businesses are going to provide good-paying, head-of-household jobs – like Firefly (Energy’s inclusion in an Enterprise Zone) last week,” Ricca said. “Because, as you all say, this city depends on good-paying jobs. And now you’re saying you want to get rid of these guys, these guys who’ve lived here for years, who’ve been dedicated to this city. I really have a hard time understanding this.”

But this is a spurious argument. It’s not the city’s job to take taxpayer money and manufacture good-paying, head-of-household jobs. The city’s job is to provide the services residents need with the best balance of quality and value it can get. There are plenty of professional services that the city could bring in house but are more economical and fiscally-responsible to outsource to private companies. Fleet management should not get any special treatment — certainly not on the basis that they get paid so well. That’s the very reason the city manager is looking at outsourcing them!

TIFs and Enterprise Zones are tools the city uses to attract private investment and the good jobs that generates. Are TIFs and Enterprise Zones abused? I think so. But that’s not an argument for creating or maintaining in-house services that could be justifiably outsourced.

Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

Supermajority approves Bradley’s institutional plan

2 Comments

Rubber StampA while back, there was a motion to require a supermajority vote to approve institutional zoning boundary changes. That motion failed. As it turns out, that initiative was moot because Bradley’s request to change their boundaries passed 10-1 last night.

There was a lot of talk about the importance of strong neighborhoods last night. Bradley and the neighborhoods have a symbiotic relationship, it was said. Bradley needs the neighborhoods surrounding it to be strong because that’s a reflection on the university. The neighborhoods need the stabilizing force of the university to remain strong neighborhoods, they say.

If that’s true (and I think it is, theoretically), then why is Bradley doing so much damage to their relationship with the neighborhoods by their unilateral behavior? Why are they destabilizing the Arbor District — the neighborhood to their immediate west?

There can be no doubt that the Arbor District has been destabilized, despite any protestations to the contrary. The president of the Arbor District’s neighborhood association, Mr. Wagner, stood up at the meeting and told the council members that in the 800 block of Cooper alone, thirteen homes had been converted from single-family, owner-occupied residences to rentals. Is this Bradley’s idea of a stable neighborhood: One where owners are moving out and absentee landlords are buying up their property?

Bradley likes to portray itself as neighborhood-friendly, but only when it serves their purpose. In my opinion, they’re opportunistic. They point with pride to the public meetings last fall and this February when they “communicated” with the neighbors. But this was one-way communication, not two-way collaboration. The major components of their plan, such as the parking deck, were non-negotiable.

Marjorie Klise got it right when she said that the issue here is not just the ends, but the means. She gave the best analogy of the flawed nature of this process when she addressed the council:

[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/Klise-03132007-Council.mp3]

Bradley would just as soon forget about the past and start moving forward from here. Forget about the process that got us here and look at their commitments for the future. Consider their “commitment” to the neighborhood, measured in dollars invested and conditions agreed to, like this one from staff:

Bradley University shall continue the positive ongoing communication strategy with surrounding neighborhood associations. Prior to each implementation of the improvements in the official development plan, Bradley University shall initiate timely discussion with the impacted and nearby neighborhood associations. Bradley University shall work with the neighborhood to stabilize and improve off-premise student housing, increase home ownership in nearby neighborhoods, and encourage a mutually beneficial campus-neighborhood relationship.

That sounds lovely, but there’s no enforcement mechanism. Ask yourself this, if Bradley started stonewalling the neighborhoods tomorrow in direct violation of this clause, what would happen? What could or would the city do? If past actions are any indication, the answer is nothing. Consider that the city couldn’t get Bradley to pave a gravel parking lot for the past 15 years. If they can’t enforce something as simple, obvious, and tangible as that, how are they ever going to enforce something as nebulous as “initiat[ing] timely discussion with the impacted and nearby neighborhood associations”?

By passing this ordinance last night, the city council tacitly endorsed Bradley’s tactics and offered no real assurance to the surrounding neighborhoods that this wouldn’t happen again in another 10-15 years. Instead of “removing doubt,” like Mrs. Klise said the city indicated was the purpose of institutional zoning, last night’s action has increased doubt. And that doubt will lead to more speculation along Cooper and other surrounding streets.

There were a lot of good sound bites about communication and neighborhood stability, but it was all belied by a vote that gave Bradley everything it wanted, and left the neighborhoods with the same empty promises they’ve had all along. Bradley’s plan should have been denied.

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

The first quadrennial At-Large Prediction Contest

8 Comments

On the suggestion of my good friend Mahkno, I’m going to tear a page out of the Journal-Star-Cue-Section playbook and open up this thread for At-Large City Council Member predictions.

This will be kind of like the Movie Match contest the Journal Star does every year, only there are no prizes — just the satisfaction of knowing you called it right. Here’s how it works:

In the comments section, type who you think will be the five winning candidates in order of finishing in the April 17 general election. After the election, I’ll post the names (or pseudonyms, as the case may be) of those who either got it spot-on or came the closest to the actual results.

Fortune Cookie

Good news: You don’t have to guess how many votes they’ll get or how wide the margin of victory will be. Just the names in the correct order. No wagering, please.

Good luck, everyone, and let the games begin!

Bradley University, City of Peoria

Uplands still opposes N1 zoning

19 Comments

No N1It was a long meeting tonight (a little over two hours), but in the end the Uplands Residential Association reaffirmed last month’s vote to oppose N1 zoning for the Pi Phi house at the corner of Institute and Main.

Our second district councilperson Barbara Van Auken couldn’t be here tonight since she’s out of town, so at-large councilman Gary Sandberg stood in for her, explaining what could happen to the property if it were rezoned or not rezoned. He had clearly done a lot of research on the issue and his comments were very helpful. Also visiting the neighborhood association meeting was at-large councilman George Jacob, who even brought his wife along.

The meeting was very civil and organized. No yelling or fighting. There were good arguments made on both sides. But when it came right down to it, the majority of homeowners just don’t trust Bradley. They haven’t earned our trust. And that’s largely why the N1 zoning request was defeated.

Bradley has stated that they will abide by the wishes of the neighborhood association, so I expect they will not ask for this property to be rezoned at April’s Zoning Commission hearing or any subsequent hearings (in the near future at least).

UPDATE (3/9): As if to provide final vindication that the Uplands made the right decision last night, the Journal Star published an editorial this morning in favor of institutional zoning for the Pi Phi house. Since they’re for it, we clearly made the right decision by voting against it.

They titled their editorial “Bradley is not the bogeyman.” This from the same company that has launched a massive “Save the Journal Star” campaign. Perhaps I should write an editorial of my own called, “Copley Press is not the bogeyman,” and tell the workers there “to relax.” 🙂

They argue that Bradley has been a good neighbor and quote Gary Anna’s assurance that Bradley is “not looking to encroach into the Uplands.” And if you believe Gary Anna, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in purchasing. Seriously, I’m sure they’re not looking to encroach right now, but 10-15 years from now, after Gary Anna is gone and a new administration is in place, things will change. We don’t need the precedent.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Actions speak louder than words

14 Comments

In Saturday’s paper, the editors write about how terrible it is that the City of Peoria is ending its involvement with District 150’s crossing guard program, looking at water user fees that would impact the district, and moving toward establishing two new TIFs that would also impact D150. The title and main point of their editorial: “Actions speak louder than words.”

Indeed.

From the same paper, in an article on District 150’s plan to demolish three houses they purchased adjacent to Glen Oak Park:

[District treasurer Guy] Cahill said the district hasn’t abandoned its interest in building a school on that site one day, which is part of the reason why demolition is an appropriate choice.

“We never intended to have those houses there in the long-run anyway. In other words, the homes add no value to that property near or long-term,” Cahill said after the meeting.

Never mind that every neighborhood association came out against the school in the park. Never mind that the Park Board denied a land-sharing agreement that was critical for the school’s plans to locate there. Never mind that the City of Peoria, while not officially voting on it, nevertheless made clear its displeasure and even made overtures to help the district keep the school at the current Glen Oak School site. No, today we read that “the district hasn’t abandoned its interest in building a school on that site one day,” and thus will commence with demolishing the houses already purchased — a few at a time, apparently.

In other words, the school district is collectively giving Peoria the finger.

Hence, I don’t shed one tear over the actions the City has taken to start withdrawing support from District 150. It’s not like the City hasn’t tried to cooperate. In 2006, the City extended to District 150 $311,105 in operating costs, $575,000 in capital costs, and $236,000 in debt service costs — a total of $1,122,105. Did they ever ask anything from District 150 in return for that? Once: they asked that the Woodruff attendance area replacement school be built at the site of the current Glen Oak School building — and even offered to throw in $500,000 more for property acquisition to boot. Response from District 150? The finger.

You know what? Cooperation isn’t cooperation when only one party is doing the cooperating. That’s called exploitation. And that’s what District 150 is doing to the City and the taxpayers.

They need to go. Hinton needs to go. Cahill needs to go. And, frankly, the school board needs to go.

Until people are elected/hired that will truly cooperate (partner, collaborate) with others — such as the City, the taxpayers, the parents and teachers — I don’t think they should get one thin dime from the City.

Furthermore, if things don’t turn around soon, I think the Mayor should appeal to the state for authority to take over the school district just like Mayor Daley did with the Chicago public schools over a decade ago. Peoria’s public school district is getting close to a state takeover anyway — why not keep it local?

Bradley University, City of Peoria

Zoning Commission approves Bradley institutional plan

10 Comments

Peoria’s Zoning Commission yesterday approved Bradley University’s institutional zoning plan… well, most of it, anyway. There were some properties that Bradley will be bringing back for approval at the April Zoning Commission meeting. Meanwhile, the bulk of it goes to the City Council on March 13. WHOI also reports this:

People who live in the neighborhood say the school should stay out.

“The city of Peoria needs to preserve and strengthen its older neighborhoods and putting Uplands property into Bradley’s institutional boundary will not help that preservation effort,” said Uplands neighborhood resident C.J. Summers.

Hey, I’ve heard of that guy somewhere…. Yes, my concern is over this part of Bradley’s plan:

Pi Phi houseYou see that dashed blue line that extends north across Main Street to encompass that property at the corner of Institute and Main? That’s the Pi Phi sorority house, and it is in the Uplands neighborhood. Bradley wants to include that in their institutional zone.

The Pi Phi house (1004 N. Institute) is owned by the sorority, and they want to move over near the other fraternities/sororities on Fredonia. So the plan is for Bradley to buy the Pi Phi house and do a kind of land-swap.

The Uplands Residential Association (URA) voted at their last meeting to oppose N-1 zoning for that property. That vote was reported to Bradley, and they removed the Pi Phi house from their request to the Zoning Commission, at least temporarily. So the vote at yesterday’s ZC meeting did not include the Pi Phi house.

Since the URA vote, Bradley has been working on a counteroffer, for lack of a better word. In return for the Uplands’ support for N-1 zoning, they would agree to restrict the uses of the property to offices or visiting faculty housing or some other mutually-agreeable use. The next URA meeting isn’t until March 8.

So, the way it stands is this. If the URA votes again to oppose N-1 zoning, Bradley has agreed to not try and add it to their institutional plan and will not buy the sorority property. If the URA votes to overturn their previous vote, then Bradley will go before the ZC in April to ask that the property be added to the N-1 boundaries.

Of course, the agenda for the ZC meeting yesterday said that the Pi Phi house was part of what they were voting on, which is why I went down there. It wasn’t until they got to that point on the agenda that they announced the Pi Phi house was removed from the request. But since I was already there, I went ahead and made my statement anyway. At least it’s on the record.

There are people on both sides of this issue in the Uplands. Some residents — and even Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken — think it would be a good thing for Pi Phi to get N-1 zoning because the university is more responsive to code violations and other disturbances than, say, absentee landlords. Also, Bradley’s offer to restrict the use of the property appeals to some who live close by because they believe it will make things more stable.

My concern is that I believe Bradley’s restricted use offer is a short-term concession. Once they get the N-1 zoning, it’s their foot in the door for further encroachment. It would set a bad precedent. We shouldn’t be inviting Bradley across Main in the false hope that it will bring stability to the neighborhood. Expanding institutions will not bring stability, but instability. After what happened on Maplewood, if Bradley comes into the Uplands, it will make our neighborhood at the fringes more susceptible to speculation and make it harder to attract single-family residents.

We can’t just look at the short term. We have to think about long-term strategies. To let this change go through unopposed I believe would indicate we were tacitly approving future Bradley expansion into the Uplands. I don’t think that’s a message we want to communicate. We have to think about what impact this decision will have 5-10-15 years down the road, not just its immediate impact.

Incidentally, the Pi Phi house is unlikely to be returned to single-family use. It’s been a sorority at least since 1944, according to Ed Boik in the City’s Planning and Growth department. It used to be zoned as such, but zoning code changes around 1979-1981 rezoned the property R-4 (single family residential), but grandfathered in the sorority as a non-conforming use. So, short of tearing down the structure and building a single-family home, this property will probably always be non-conforming. So the fight here isn’t so much about the particular use of this property as it is the perceived encroachment of Bradley and what that might portend for the future of the neighborhood.

UPDATE: The Journal Star’s article is here. Wow, I’m getting quoted all over the place! I made it clear at the meeting, and I want to say again that I did not speak to the commission on behalf of the Uplands; I spoke only for myself as a resident. The president of our neighborhood association, Bernie Goitein, is the Uplands’ official spokesperson.