Category Archives: East Bluff

City Council, City of Peoria, East Bluff, Economic Development, OSF St. Francis, Peoria Mayor, Peoria Public Schools, TIF

The East Village Growth Cell is born

18 Comments

The City of Peoria is taking steps toward establishing another growth cell and tax increment financing (TIF) district. There’s even a website devoted to it. The website is very informative; it includes a map, a frequently-asked-questions (FAQ) page, and a timeline.

Here’s a brief overview of what’s happening: The City has been using a “growth cell strategy” to expand and develop the north and west fringes of the City. They now want to “apply the City’s Growth Cell Strategy to the heart of the City; taking advantage of existing infrastructure and building upon existing public and private investment.” So, they’ve carved out the following area to redevelop:

As you can see, they’re calling this the “East Village Growth Cell.” Already, there is “increase[d] interest in redevelopment,” they say, as a result of the new Glen Oak School and Neighborhood Impact Zone, but “additional public guidance and intervention are needed to further spur growth within the area,” according to the website. So, they want to get this area designated as a “Redevelopment Project Area” and classified as a “blighted area” or “conservation area” so they can create a new TIF. The growth cell and TIF would be coterminous.

That’s it in a nutshell; there’s more information at www.EastVillagePeoria.com.

Of particular interest in this whole process, though, is OSF’s involvement. They’re putting up the money for the study, the website explains: “As one of the larger investors within the East Village, OSF has agreed to advance the cost for the Consultant that will be reimbursed to OSF out of first proceeds if, and only if, Council approves a redevelopment project.” And the Catholic Diocese (specifically Patricia Gibson, Chancellor/Diocesan Attorney) issued the following press release today:

On behalf of the Catholic Diocese of Peoria, I would like to express my overwhelming support for the proposed East Village Growth Cell. This creative and progressive initiative will advance the quality of life of individuals living in the study area and make essential improvements to our most historic and traditional neighborhoods.

Our most precious resources are the families who live throughout the City of Peoria. It’s particularly important that we engage these families throughout the process and demonstrate the City’s commitment to provide resources to reinvest and revitalize the heart of our community. This study area can be the stepping stones to a new beginning for the neighborhoods located within the East Village Growth Cell.

“The proposed study area will be a tremendous blessing to the Peoria community,” says Patricia Gibson, Chancellor/Diocesan Attorney. “The Catholic Diocese has made major investments within the proposed study area including the ongoing restoration of Spalding Institute and a new Pastoral Center. Additionally, St. Mary’s Cathedral and St. Bernard’s Parish are uniquely located within the proposed boundaries. We believe that this neighborhood will continue to grow and flourish, and we are confident that an investment of this magnitude will open the door to future development.”

OSF Saint Francis Medical Center has lead the way in providing the highest quality of health care for our city. They continue to show their commitment to the community with the expansion of their campus. We trust that the continued involvement of OSF will greatly enhance future development.

And the City of Peoria also issued a press release that quotes several community leaders; here’s part of it:

A new strategy will ensure that these projects are completed in a consistent manner, thereby becoming a catalyst for future investment.

On July 13, 2010, Members of the Peoria City Council will be asked to approve a request for proposals to conduct a study in the East Village Growth Cell. The study will determine if the area is eligible for redevelopment. A residential TIF has the potential to create opportunities for major improvements in the study area. This initiative marks the first time that the City of Peoria has done a study that includes housing.

“This could be a unique project in that it incorporates opportunities for residential re-development in the heart of one of our older neighborhoods. I believe the council will be anxious to see the study move forward and have an opportunity to discuss the findings.  Perhaps it will generate a model we can use in other more mature areas of our city,” says Mayor Jim Ardis.

Development in the proposed East Village Growth Cell will compliment the ventures currently undertaken in the area, including investments by OSF Saint Francis Medical Center and District 150 in the surrounding neighborhood. The study will also provide the opportunity to develop businesses within the Growth Cell.

The East Village Growth Cell presents an opportunity for a major collaboration between Peoria School District 150, OSF Saint Francis Medical Center, and the City of Peoria.

Dr. Grenita Lathan, Superintendent of Peoria Public Schools said, “We look forward to partnering with the City and OSF on this potential growth opportunity for Glen Oak School and the surrounding neighborhoods.”

“OSF Saint Francis Medical Center is pleased to support the East Village redevelopment project. We believe the stabilization of the neighborhood and the increase in home ownership will have a positive impact on the area,” says Sue Wozniak, Chief Operating Officer, OSF Saint Francis Medical Center.

The study area has the potential to provide for future growth, improvements to the surrounding neighborhoods, and redevelopment of affordable housing.

So, let’s see, the Mayor, the D150 Superintendent, the OSF COO . . . . I do believe this is a highly coordinated effort. All these press releases, the website, a surprise public meeting with residents, and the City Council agenda came out on the same day at the same time. Sounds like yet another deal that has been brokered behind closed doors and rolled out to the public with great fanfare, ala the Wonderful Development.

I hate to be cynical, but this just looks like a typical “done deal” with public input solicited after the fact for window dressing. It bothers me that there’s been so much apparent coordination by public officials out of the public’s eye. The public doesn’t have much time to look into this project before the City votes on pursuing it. That’s generally how the Council likes it.

City Council, City of Peoria, East Bluff

Council looks to state for help, but won’t help themselves

4 Comments

The city council can be so schizophrenic sometimes.

At Tuesday’s meeting, they first decided to keep taxing residents of the East Bluff Special Service District 18 cents per $100 equalized assessed value for another ten years to continue funding the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Service, a controversial organization residents feel is ineffective and secretive. The vote was 9-1.

Then, just a couple of agenda items later, fourth district councilman Bill Spears made a motion “to begin discussions [with state legislators] on innovative ways to bring back the core of the inner city by giving incentives, such as tax breaks to homeowners and owned businesses.” After some discussion, that passed 9-1 also.

So they’re for talking about tax breaks with state reps, but not actually giving tax breaks to a distressed part of town when given the opportunity. Tell me that isn’t dysfunctional.

City of Peoria, East Bluff

Is East Bluff NHS controversy all smoke but no fire?

4 Comments

Rev. Tom Stone would like one thing to be clear: the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Service is not a governmental body.

I got a chance to talk with East Bluff NHS President Stone on Friday and ask him about some of the criticisms that were leveled at the organization during Tuesday night’s City Council meeting. He’s heard them all. He believes they boil down to a fundamental misunderstanding: The East Bluff NHS is a private, non-profit, 501(c)3 organization — not a governmental body. Thus, it doesn’t have to abide by the Open Meetings Act, but is free to act like any other private, non-profit organization.

Looking back at my notes of the public hearing Tuesday night, that did seem to be a recurring theme. “There’s no accountability; EBNHS keeps its meetings closed,” one speaker said. “There needs to be notification of the meetings, and neighbors should be allowed to attend the meetings,” said another. That would be true if this were a governmental body, like the City Council or a city commission. But private organizations such as Catholic Charities or Children’s Home of Illinois are not required to have open meetings or invite the public to attend their executive board meetings. The East Bluff NHS is just that sort of organization.

Apparently past officers thought that, since the organization gets grant money from the City through a special service district, that made the EBNHS a quasi-governmental organization, and so they conducted the meetings that way. That’s why residents, some past officers, and other interested parties think it’s supposed to be subject to the Open Meetings Act (OMA), according to Stone. Legal counsel has since affirmed that it is not quasi-governmental, and new officers are no longer abiding by the OMA. Naturally, some people are feeling left out now.

Stone sees freedom from the OMA as a positive thing for the neighborhood. He explained that the belief by previous officers that they were subject to the OMA caused the organization to be slow to respond when needs arose. For instance, when a tree limb fell on a structure owned by the EBNHS, Stone said, the officers believed they couldn’t do anything about it without first having a regularly-scheduled, properly-noticed public meeting. Meanwhile, the limb and structure were a danger to residents in the neighborhood. By not being “hamstrung” by the OMA, Stone continued, the EBNHS can be more responsive and take quicker action on matters.

Another criticism from the council meeting was that one property the EBNHS has rehabilitated is being rented instead of sold as an owner-occupied property. Stone said that they did try to sell that property initially and couldn’t find a buyer, but they were continuing to pay all the utilities on the property as it sat vacant. They felt it would be better for the neighborhood to rent it to a good tenant than to have the property remain vacant. Besides, he explained, 50% of the residents in the East Bluff are renters, and there is a legitimate need for decent, well-maintained rental property as part of the housing mix.

After the Council meeting, concerns were expressed to me over the fact that the EBNHS was changing its bylaws. Stone confirmed that they are doing that, but the reason is because past changes to certain parts of the bylaws had put those provisions in conflict with other portions of the bylaws. So, the changes are designed to make the bylaws consistent. While he didn’t mention it, I imagine (this is pure speculation on my part!) that parts of the bylaws that required compliance with the OMA were probably removed, and this was upsetting to those who thought the EBNHS should be subject to the OMA, as discussed earlier.

One last criticism I didn’t talk to Stone about was the claim that there isn’t enough accountability. This criticism also shows up in Third District Councilman Tim Riggenbach’s comments to the Journal Star:

Riggenbach said the council likely will ask for the group to submit minutes from its meetings or provide the city with its quarterly financial data. “We are expending taxpayers’ dollars on this, so we need to hold them accountable,” Riggenbach said. “Ultimately, the council is responsible for it.”

While it’s not quarterly, most non-profit agencies have to complete IRS form 990, which is open for public inspection through services such as GuideStar. Form 990 lists the officers, financial information, and the mission statement of the organization. I wondered if the East Bluff NHS had been completing and submitting these forms, which would indicate whether it’s being as accountable as other non-profit ventures. They have. The most recent form posted is for the 2007 tax year, which was filed in November 2008.

Whether there needs to be more accountability is debatable, but it does appear that they’re doing everything they’re legally required to do at this time. The City can attach whatever legal strings they want to the grant; in fact, they could make it so unpalatable that the EBNHS decides not to take it and pursue private funding instead, such as through NeighborWorks.

But all this controversy is a mystery to Rev. Stone. He points out that the EBNHS has done next to nothing the last couple of years and hardly any residents have attended the heretofore open meetings. Yet he didn’t hear any complaints about the lack of progress. Why all the criticism now that they are moving forward to improve the neighborhood? Why would the residents want to stop the City from reinvesting in the East Bluff? And why haven’t any of the critics contacted him to discuss their concerns?

It sounds to me like George Jacob has the right solution:

At-large City Councilman George Jacob said all parties involved in the issue need to come together and talk.

“I think it would be an idea for the groups to get together and air out their concerns and see if there is a constructive way we can resolve people’s concerns,” he said.

East Bluff, North Valley, Peoria Public Schools

Neighbors spar over school sites

9 Comments

Terry Larson at District 150 ForumI attended the first of four public forums hosted by District 150 last night. This one was held at Woodruff High School. The school board is trying to convince the public that they’re listening and seriously considering public input in the siting of a new school for the Woodruff attendance area.

And that is indeed “a new school” — singular. District officials said last night that there is funding to build only one new school. That school will replace Glen Oak, Kingman, and Irving primary schools, and White middle school. That covers the east bluff and the north valley, and basically sets up a scenario in which neighborhoods will be competing against each other for the new school.

Generally speaking, those who live on the bluff want the school to be up on the bluff. Those in the valley want the school to be in the valley. Some suggested putting the school near Woodruff and Lincoln schools, saying it’s the most centrally-located site for those above and below the bluff, but others insisted it would not be a good idea to mix Kindergarteners and high school seniors on the same campus.

East bluff residents are still divided between the current Glen Oak School site and the now-defunct Glen Oak Park site. Terry Larson (pictured above) presented 400 signatures from people wanting the school adjacent to the park, and several other people in attendance spoke in favor of the park site. That brought objections from other neighbors, who pointed out that the ground rules specifically stated that the Glen Oak Park site was off the table, and didn’t feel it was appropriate to be arguing for/against a site that is specifically excluded from consideration. Their complaints fell on deaf ears, however, as both the facilitator Brad McMillan and school board president David Gorenz encouraged all neighbors to speak freely on any site they wanted, claiming they wanted to “welcome all comments.”

But it soon became clear that not all comments were welcome. When people started suggesting the school board build two smaller schools (one on the bluff and one in the valley) instead of one large school, McMillan chastised the crowd, saying that they should be “realistic” since the school board had already said there is only funding to build one school. It’s unclear why he didn’t feel it equally unrealistic to suggest a site that has been officially blackballed by the park district and completely out of the school board’s control.

Those who live in the valley suggested the Morton Square Park site and the current Kingman school site.

Most people spoke off the cuff, but a few had prepared their presentations in advance. Terry Larson, whom I’ve already mentioned, was one. Another was Mike Standish, 1515 NE Perry, who put together a PowerPoint presentation with Aaron Moore advocating the Woodruff/Lincoln site. Roberta Parks spoke on behalf of the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce and said the school board should consider sites that have “better spin-off potential” or potential for economic development around the new school, both residential and commercial. Steve Katlack, 709 E. Frye, put together a handout that advocated the current Glen Oak School site, and addressed all of the school board’s stated criteria for site selection.

The next meeting will take place at Irving Primary School on Thursday, Sept. 27. After that, there will be meetings at Von Steuben on Oct. 4 and Glen Oak on Oct. 18. A final report will be prepared by Nov. 9, which the school board will deliberate on Nov. 19. A final decision will be made by Dec. 3, and that decision will be announced on Dec. 17.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

East Bluff businesses want nothing to do with petition signing

9 Comments

Clare Jellick reports tonight:

The Boys and Girls Club has pulled out of letting a group of people use its space for a petition drive in support of a school at Glen Oak Park. […]

“We went to several places, and they said it was kind of controversial. They did not want to allow us to rent a space because of the subject matter,” said Bruce Morgan, who lives just south of the park on Frye Avenue.

I have the solution for our luckless “silent majority.” They can have their petition signing party on one of the properties the school district recently purchased on the corner of Frye and Prospect. I’m sure the school board wouldn’t mind. Plus, it would have these added benefits:

  • Reduction of depression and aggression in petition signers
  • Environment-based petition signing develops skills in problem solving, critical thinking, and decision making
  • Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that signing petitions in natural surroundings stimulates creativity and activism
  • Ability to draw a better picture of a bee next to their names on the petition

The people behind this petition drive need to ask themselves, don’t their petition signers deserve the best environment for signing a petition? Can they really even consider anyplace else? It’s easy to get there — just one moderately busy street to cross. It will increase park attendance, and while they’re there, they can visit the zoo and botanical gardens.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Park District

Petition drive underway to reconsider Park Board decision

14 Comments

The heretofore “silent majority” wants the Park District to know that, although they never said anything all last year while the controversy was going on, they really want a school in Glen Oak Park. Now, after the decision has already been made, they are mobilizing their forces — all 30 of them so far.

They have such nice things to say about their neighbors, too:

Lance Sperry, who has joined [Teresa] Larson in the cause, said the people that attended meeting after meeting to oppose the site aren’t the majority.

“It’s just a few that have the time to go to every (City) Council meeting, shake their fists at every Park Board meeting. A lot of us just don’t have the time to do this,” Sperry said.

Oh, sure. Five neighborhood associations, the Heart of Peoria Commission, Councilman Bob Manning, et. al., are just a few lazy bums with all kinds of time on their hands and nothing better to do than to go to every council and park board meeting. They don’t have job commitments or families or social lives like the vaunted “silent majority” who “just don’t have the time” to participate in civic affairs.

That means this “majority,” if we are to believe Mr. Sperry, is too busy to make a call, write a letter, or attend a meeting; no, political action is evidently at the very bottom of their priority list, and they consider that a virtue. Teresa Larson (the apparent leader of this petition drive) says she “just assumed that the Park Board would make the ‘right’ decision.” Well I guess she and her johnny-come-lately petition signers have learned a valuable civics lesson.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools

More false hope from District 150?

5 Comments

Clare Jellick reports in the Journal Star today:

District 150 Superintendent Ken Hinton won’t continue buying properties near Glen Oak Park until he has time to talk to neighborhood groups and City Council members, he said Monday.

Hinton told the School Board Monday that he had originally intended to bring forth a recommendation at that meeting, but “for now that’s not going to take place.”

“I just want to talk to (people) and let them know where we are and what we’re thinking,” Hinton said after Monday’s meeting.

The implication is that Hinton is still trying to work out a compromise with the city and East Bluff neighbors. But if the last two counterproposals he offered the city are any indication, it’s likely this will simply be another attempt to pursuade everyone that putting the school next to a park is the best idea in education since the Dewey Decimal System.

But I’ll try to suppress my suspicion until I hear “where [they] are and what [they’re] thinking.” Maybe he’ll surprise us all.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Letter to District 150 School Board and Peoria Park Board

I received the following as a comment to my blog and as an e-mail, and feel it’s worthy of its own post. If you agree with this letter, I encourage you to send it to school board and park board members as suggested:

This is a letter compiled by some East Bluff residents regarding the placement of the new school into the Park. If you still respect our position; are still willing to back us, please copy and send this letter to all Park/School board members listed below before Monday night’s School Board meeting. The School and Park Board state that they have not received e-mails from constituants disagreeing with their position. Wouldn’t you think that public comment during school and park board meetings would be enough…apparantly not.

Please include your name at the bottom of this letter….thank you for your help regarding this issue.

tcassidy@cassidymueller.com
rpallen4@insightbb.com
sbudzinski@aol.com
robertjohnsonsr@sbcglobal.net
petty7@aol.com
pcwrt2004@yahoo.com
david.gorenz@psd150.org
martha.ross@psd150.org
alicia.butler@psd150.org
sean.matheson@psd150.org
mary.spangler@psd150.org
jim.stowell@psd150.org
debbie.wolfmeyer@psd150.org

The City of Peoria adopted the Heart of Peoria Plan, which states on page 13 that a school should be in the center of the community which it services. The way the Glen Oak School situation was handled from Day One, there has not been a full study done examining the cost of renovating and adding to the existing school site, compared to building a new school. Based solely on a preliminary study and letter of intent between the two boards, over $800,000.00 has already been spent acquiring adjacent properties, prior to either board having a signed legal agreement. Additional funds have already been spent with architectural firms designing a facility with only consideration of new construction at the new location, not revitalizing or new construction at the existing location. Neither board approached the citizens within the area covered, requesting input on the location of the new school. Both the City and the citizens have presented several workable footprint alternatives at the existing location. It is our contention, that thus far, the elected officials of both the District 150 School Board and the Peoria Park District Board, have no consideration for the position taken by its constituents on this matter. All direction has come from subordinate appointed staff members. The following have stated, both written and verbally, the dissatisfaction of placing this school within the boundaries of Glen Oak Park: Illinois State Senator George Shadid, U.S. Congressman Ray LaHood, City of Peoria (both Mayor and most Council), Peoria Fire Department, Peoria Police Department, Neighborhood Alliance, East Bluff United Neighborhood Association, Glen Oak Neighborhood Association, East Bluff Serenity Neighborhood Association, Gift Avenue Neighborhood Association, and East Bluff Housing Services. We, the citizens within the District 150 and Park District boundaries, request this situation be terminated by both District 150 School Board and Peoria Park District Board. Although there are many individual reasons not to put the new school at the park location, we feel the main concerns of ALL citizens is the protection of the children who will attend this school. Due to the busy Prospect, Frye, and Abingdon intersection, additional crossing guards will be required. The park location will continue to require additional costs exemplified by the busing of additional students. The busing will require additional buses, drivers, fuel, maintenance, and bus monitors. The City Police Department will need to provide additional protection due to the access to the bordering park area. Known sex offenders will be able to go into the adjacent park, zoo, and amphitheater. Should the school be required to have a major lock-down, the zoo, Children’s Museum and play area will also be required to go down to lock-down status. The continued loss of assets — Sunken Garden, Palm House, Log Cabin, Train, etc — is also a concern. This proposed school will further limit and cause public usage to diminish. Although the School District has suggested that there will be no loss of property by the park district, we have been told that only the parking lot will be utilized by both facilities. Where do you propose to put all the vehicles of the employees of both facilities? Nothing has been said regarding the requirements of movement of the park maintenance facility. The park belongs to ALL the Peoria tax paying citizens. If the proposed school is constructed, the bus and other traffic will increase. Will the East Street be relocated on park land, further reducing already limited park space? With the planned zoo expansion, along with the Children’s Museum, open free green-space will be unavailable to the public. Your consideration on this very important and sensitive matter will be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,
The Concerned Citizens of Peoria

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Questions and Questionable Answers

16 Comments

Peoria Public Schools logoThe Journal Star provides on their website a copy of the “Questions and Answer” sheet Ken Hinton distributed at the special District 150 School Board meeting on Monday. On pages three and four, it says this:

9. What is the actual size of the property being acquired at the park site. DW

ANSWER: A total of 10.47 acres is being acquired at the Park site either by actual purchase by the School District or subject to the 99-year Intergovernmental Agreement. In addition, however, Glen Oak Park is 110 acres and all of the facilities will be available for school use subject to mutually agreed rules and regulations (scheduling, etc.) The general Park site includes such things as Centennial Playground, the theatre bandshell, baseball/softball diamonds, Children’s Museum, Zoo, soccer fields, nature areas, numerous tennis courts (some of which are currently being used by Woodruff High School) and Botanical Gardens and Conservatory.

At the Park District Board meeting tonight, East Bluff United Neighborhood Association president Marty Palmer asked the board members about that answer during the public comments period. I wasn’t personally there to hear it, but he reports to me in an e-mail that “the board denied all of the answers” to that question, and “they (board) have not talked to #150 at all since the letter of intent was signed.”

So it does appear that District 150 is (once again) jumping the gun on their site plans. Until they have an actual intergovernmental agreement (not just a letter of intent), they can’t assume all of the things they’re proposing in their question and answer document.

But there’s something else that’s questionable about their answer to this question and question 18 (“Would the city be willing to cover the cost of going to the park if the current school site is chosen”). Please bear with me as I set this up:

One of the big selling factors for the park site is that the kids will be able to utilize the park because they’ll be immediately adjacent to it. Specifically, the document mentions such things as the baseball diamonds, zoo, children’s museum, tennis courts, and botanical gardens. Has anyone looked at how far away from the park site these features are?

The land the school wants to build on is on the corner of Frye and Prospect. Even assuming the school building would sit on the farthest northeast corner of the proposed site (which would be unlikely), the approximate distances from the building to these wonderful amenities are:

Feature Distance
Baseball Diamonds 380-700 feet
Zoo 750 feet
Children’s Museum 900 feet
Tennis Courts 1000 feet
Botanical Gardens 1300 feet

For comparison, a city block in that area is about 350 feet. So, the closest baseball diamond is about a block away, and the botanical gardens are almost four blocks away — almost as far as it is from the current Glen Oak School to the park. Are we to assume that these children are going to walk from the new school building to these features?

I’ll buy the baseball diamonds. But do you really see 30-60 six-year-olds trapsing across the park to the zoo when it’s 94 degrees outside or raining? Or walking two and a half blocks to the children’s museum in the snow in 25 degree weather? Or ever walking to the botanical gardens even if it were 72 and sunny?

My point is that it’s very likely these kids are going to be loaded up on buses and driven to many of these different parts of the park anyway (which makes their question 18 moot). And if that’s the case, why can’t they do that from the current Glen Oak School site now? Obviously the cost of transportation to the park would be far less, even given the price of gas these days, than the cost of either building on the park site or creating a 10-acre campus at Wisconsin and Frye.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools

Say goodnight, Garrie

13 Comments

Garrie AllenOn WCBU (89.9 FM) tonight, they aired a half-hour interview with outgoing District 150 School Board member Garrie Allen. They touched on many topics, but I was particularly interested in his remarks about the Glen Oak School controversy.

Garrie Allen believes the city should butt out of the school board’s building plans — that it’s none of their business — unless, of course, they are in favor of the school board’s plans, in which case their help is welcome. He further believes that the residents, parents, and city council have an agenda: they want the school district to “clean up” the East Bluff, which he kept calling “a blighted area.” That should be the city’s job, he contends, not the school district’s.

Allen stated he was really surprised when all the controversy erupted over the Glen Oak Park location for the school. He said he thought the school board would be praised for their progressive and innovative idea and people would be lining up to volunteer their help to make it happen. Instead, the only group that really understands what the school district is trying to do, says Garrie, is the park district, which approved an intergovernmental land-sharing agreement with the school district.

I couldn’t be more disappointed with Mr. Allen’s comments.

I don’t remember Mr. Allen asking the city to “butt out” when they offered their police force to double as truancy officers. I don’t recall the city being asked to “butt out” when Mayor Ardis challenged the community to raise money for a “Peoria Promise” program that would reward students who stayed in District 150 with a free or partially-paid college education. Apparently, Mr. Allen thinks cooperation is a one-way street, from the city to the school district.

And what kind of hyper-provincial mentality believes that cleaning up a blighted neighborhood is somehow opposed to the school board’s educational objectives? One would think the school board would welcome and assist attempts to stabilize the neighborhood, since that would improve students’ home environment — and if their home environment is safe and stable, it will be easier for students to focus on their school work. But instead, Mr. Allen paints the city’s attempts to work with the school board to stabilize neighborhoods as something that will help the city, but hurt the students. This kind of twisted logic would leave Solomon scratching his head.

I had the pleasure of voting against Mr. Allen in the last election. He lost by a considerable margin, but I savor the small part I played in his defeat.

You know what amazes me about this whole Glen Oak School thing? It’s that, despite the fact that nearly every parent, neighbor, representative, resident, professional, worker, etc., in the East Bluff and the city at large has expressed disapproval of the district’s plan, the school district still thinks that they made the right decision and are doing the right thing. They’ve had Bradley professors, city commission members, a state senator, Glen Oak students, etc., all speak out against the board’s actions. Are they deterred? Has the thought, “Hmm, maybe we were wrong,” crossed their minds, if even for a fleeting moment?

Hardly. If anything, they’re all the more steeled in their opinions. If Moses walked in the district offices on Wisconsin with two tablets that said “Don’t build on Glen Oak Park” and brought 10 plagues on the district, I’m convinced the board would ignore him, too (no doubt citing separation of church and state). This kind of overconfidence is baffling, yet endemic in this board of education. For a school district that wants to build a “community center” style school, they sure are doing their darndest to alienate the community.

I think the only thing we can do is exactly what we did to Mr. Allen. Vote them out at the next available opportunity.

ADDENDUM:  I see on the July 11 council agenda that there’s intergovernmental cooperation between the school district and the city called the “Safer Neighborhood Schools Sidewalk Improvement Project.” I wonder if Mr. Allen signed on to that agreement, or if he felt the city should “butt out” of that, too.