Category Archives: East Bluff

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Kellar Branch, Peoria County, Peoria Disposal Company, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Peoria Regional Airport

A taxing weekend

4 Comments

Yesterday I got my property tax bill.

Looking it over, I see that over half my taxes go to Peoria Public School District 150. They’re going to have another forum on the future plans for Glen Oak and White schools, this time just for parents of kids who attend those schools. Superintendent Ken Hinton said, “It’s important to me to hear the voice of the parents.” Okay, I’ll take him at his word, but he’d be a whole lot more convincing if he had listened to their voice before deciding the site of a new school.

I have the same concerns about the format as other people, so I won’t repeat that here. But I would like to make another point: I think it’s important to listen to the parents of kids who attend there, but this decision doesn’t just affect them. Alterations to Glen Oak Park affects all of Peoria. Replacing the Glen Oak School site with a park, public housing, or a vacant building affects all of the East Bluff. Let’s just suppose, for the sake of argument, that the parents of kids at Glen Oak and White right now are indifferent to the location of a new school. That should be taken into consideration, but shouldn’t trump overall neighborhood and city concerns.

Also on my bill, I see I’m paying a good amount to the “Pleasure Driveway PKD,” aka the Peoria Park District. The park board was just slapped with a lawsuit this weekend by neighborhood activists Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge. According to the Journal Star, the suit “alleges closed meetings held by the board on March 8 and 22 violated the state’s Open Meetings Act by discussing plans to replace Glen Oak School when that wasn’t appropriate.” If the court finds that the board met illegally, and if the decision to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with District 150 was made in one of those meetings, one possible remedy would be to nullify the agreement that was made in secret.

I’m glad somebody cares enough to act on this. People complain about back-room deals and shady politics, but more often than not nobody does anything about it. Here are a couple of people who are willing to hold the Park Board accountable for their actions. Kudos to Karrie and Sara!

Let’s see, what else is on my tax bill? There’s Illinois Central College and the Peoria Library. Don’t have much to say about those except that I think the library here in Peoria is under-utilized. There’s a wealth of information and expertise down there — I’ve learned more about Peoria from the library than one could ever learn online.

The Greater Peoria Mass Transit District, aka CityLink, makes an appearance on my bill. They do a pretty good job of moving people around the city — a tough job when the city is as spread out as it is. On the Peoria Rails Yahoo group, several people have been throwing around the idea of using the Kellar Branch for a light passenger rail system instead of a walking/biking trail:

The expansion of Peoria population into the far northwest part of the city, the growth of shopping in that area, and greatly increased fuel costs might make light rail service feasible. The Kellar branch could up upgraded and extended over Rt 6 to a parking and depot area behind or near the Grand Prairie. Interconnecting bus service there, downtown, and perhaps at a stop or two along the way would make public transportation quicker and more user friendly. The light rail service could terminate at the old Rock Island Depot and the light rail unit could be run in the push/pull – Chicago METRA style. A shuttle bus could take passengers to and from the CITYLINK terminal on Adams St.

Not a bad idea, especially given the cost of gas these days. However, there are two things not mentioned that would have to happen for it to be successful: (1) the speed limit for this light rail system would have to be faster than the 10 mph city code dictates for trains, and (2) part of the upgrade of the Kellar Branch would have to be better signals at grade crossings and fences along the tracks where the tracks pass through neighborhoods.

CityLink isn’t the only transportation entity on my tax bill. There’s also the Greater Peoria Regional Airport Authority. They have a new skipper (Ken Spirito from Gulfport, Mississippi), and part of his mission is to “redevelop and redo this terminal building. […] I want it to be a ‘wow’ impression. I want to ‘wow’ them,” according to the Journal Star‘s May 1 article. At least one person doesn’t like that idea. Polly Peoria, usually an advocate of tearing down old buildings, likes this one, so it can stay. I haven’t flown since before 9/11/01, so I honestly have no idea what kind of condition Peoria’s airport is in. If remodeling can bring in more business though, I say go for it. It’s not like that terminal was built to be a hallmark civic building.

What’s left? Let’s see, Peoria County, which recently voted down an expansion to the hazardous waste landfill. Now there’s a public board that listened to the public. District 150 and the Park Board could learn a few things from them. I’ve already blogged about this issue at length, so I’ll move on.

Finally, there’s the City of Peoria and Peoria Township. Why we need both I don’t quite understand, and yes, I have read the Journal Star’s special series on this issue. It’s an interesting read, but given what services the township now provides, it seems like they could just as easily provide it as part of city services and eliminate redundant government bodies.

As usual, my wife and I will pick a day to go down to the courthouse, eat at the pushcarts, listen to the Arts in Education bands play, enjoy the beautiful weather (hopefully), and pay our property taxes. Doing it that way lessens the pain of all the money we’re paying.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools

District 150’s missteps not uncommon

3 Comments

One of the most surprising things I learned from reading the resources available at the National Trust for Historic Preservation website is how common District 150’s missteps are from a national perspective.  Reading the NTHP publication “Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School” (PDF file), published in 2002, is like reading our morning paper lately.

The whole report is fascinating and a highly-recommended read, but I just want to point out a few highlights from the section titled “How Shortsighted Policies Undermine Historic Neighborhood Schools”:

  • “Many state education departments either mandate or recommend a minimum number of acres for schools. […] Sites as large as those recommended today are hard to find in older cities and towns, where older schools typically occupy only two to eight acres, are surrounded by densely developed neighborhoods, and have no room to expand. […]  In Massachusetts, older communities have had to give up precious parkland and farmland so schools could meet acreage standards.”
  • “In some cases, state acreage standards are actually more flexible than they are represented to be. However, some school districts treat recommendations as if they were regulations, particularly when they want an excuse to tear down and build new. When citizens working to save older neighborhood schools try to distinguish between what’s required and what’s merely recommended, they sometimes run into a brick wall, buck-passing between state and local officials, or both.” Peoria is suffering from this: Ken Hinton went on WMBD radio and left the impression the state mandated 15 acres for a new school, when in fact Illinois has no minimum acreage requirement. And even at the meeting Monday night, school officials were applying the erroneous 15-acre standard to the current Glen Oak School site, protesting they’d have to demolish 60 houses to get that much space at the corner of Wisconsin and Frye and conlcuding, “the district simply doesn’t have the money to build there.” Yet the 15-acre standard is completely arbitrary and impractical for an inner-city school.
  • When comparing the costs of renovation vs. new construction, “certain new construction costs — items such as land acquisition, water and sewer line extensions, transportation and road work, for example — may not be factored into the comparison. […] The rules also trivialize other values, such as a community’s desire to maintain a school as a neighborhood anchor or to have a school to which children can walk.”
  • The costs of busing children longer distances as a result of building schools in remote locations are sometimes ignored, even though these costs can be substantial.
  • “Because of insufficient operating funds, many school districts […] have to defer needed building maintenance.  In other cases, school boards have been criticized for allowing older schools to deteriorate, knowing it will then be easier to garner voter approval for new buildings.”
  • And finally, this is my favorite: “Although many school boards are models of inclusiveness and openness, other boards act in secrecy and make citizens feel shut of the planning process.”

Regarding that last point, the Journal Star correctly pointed out in a recent editorial that the board’s actions weren’t technically secret.  They did disclose that Glen Oak Park and Morton Square Park were potential sites back in October 2005, even saying explicitly that the Glen Oak Park site was “preferred.” However, the final decision-making process was not what one would call “inclusive.”

According to the master facilities planning document, the committee held forums September 5-16, 2005, before the document disclosing specific sites was released.  After the document was released, no further input from neighbors, parents, the city, or other concern citizens was solicited until this past Monday night’s meeting.  But I think everyone’s pleased they provided Monday’s forum, belated as it was — let’s just hope it results in some positive changes from the school board.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools

Quiet school board members not a bad thing

1 Comment

There’s been a lot on the news about the format of the District 150 public forum last night at Woodruff High School.  There was no real dialogue — the board gave their presentation and the residents gave their presentations.  The board chose not to respond to questions or comments from the audience, but instead post responses on their website at a later date, after they’ve had a chance to discuss them.

I don’t think that’s a bad thing.  The natural tendency would be for the school board members to be defensive in the face of questions and comments from the audience, and want to explain themselves.  Had they responded directly in the forum last night, a lot of time would have been spent with the school board talking, and talking, and talking.  The format they chose allowed the maximum amount of time for East Bluff residents and other concerned citizens to voice their concerns and for the board to do the best thing they could do:  listen.

Of more concern to me was the fact that not all the school board members were there.  According to the Journal Star, the board members who attended were Alicia Butler, Sean Matheson, Steve Morris, David Gorenz and Mary Spangler.  That means Garrie Allen and Martha Ross didn’t show up.  Why not?  Where were they?  Did they have a good excuse to miss such an important meeting?  Or did they not feel listening to residents was important?

City Council, City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools

File this under “I” for “Irony”

On Monday, May 1, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., there will be a special meeting of the Peoria Public School Board at Woodruff High School to get input from the public regarding the district’s plans to abandon — and possibly raze to make way for public housing — the current Glen Oak School building, erected in 1889.

May 1 also kicks off “Historic Preservation Month.” A typical proclamation for this month reads as follows:

WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing livability; and

WHEREAS, historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban and rural, and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds; and

WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that has shaped us as a people; and

NOW, THEREFORE, I, (governor of your state, mayor of your city), do proclaim May 2006, as National Preservation Month, and call upon the people of (your state or city) to join their fellow citizens across the United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance.

I’m not sure what the wording will be for Peoria, but a proclamation for Historic Preservation Month is planned for the Peoria City Council meeting Tuesday night.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

And another thing about yesterday’s editorial . . .

1 Comment

The Journal Star still hasn’t put yesterday’s editorial on their website where everyone can read it. I don’t blame them. It was so bad I’d want to just forget the whole thing, too, if I were they.

Still, I subscribe to the paper, so I have a copy of it, and I just remembered another ridiculous statement of theirs I failed to mention in my earlier post:

Now State Sen. George Shadid says he’ll ask the governor not to sign legislation he sponsored to help District 150 pay for new schools. [ . . . ] Shadid must surely recognize it’s not the School Board or superintendent he’s attempting to punish, but Peoria’s children. His bill and this issue go way beyond just this one school.

The bill to which they are referring is SB 2477 which lets the Public Building Commission issue bonds for school construction — in Peoria only, and only through the year 2011. So when the editorial board says this bill goes “way beyond just this one school,” remember that it only applies to Peoria’s school district, which is currently planning to build a total of six schools within the next five years. “Way beyond” seems a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think?

But on to their main point. What would happen if the governor didn’t sign this bill? Would it punish Peoria’s children, as the Journal Star contends?

In a word, no. For one thing, their statement assumes a new building is so desperately needed that the denial of it is considered punishment. That contention hasn’t been proven.

But besides that, the school district could still issue bonds for school construction without this bill — they’d just have to get the voters’ okay via a referendum. Isn’t that awful? Imagine! Having to (gasp!) communicate to the public and (*wheeze*) persuade the public to invest in such a plan. Horrors! Funny, I sense a trend here . . . .

I get the impression that the Journal Star editorial board has joined the school and park boards in believing the public is too stupid or too bothersome and must be avoided at all costs. It’s a shame they think so little of us, considering we’re the ones who will be paying off this construction through our property taxes.

Sen. Shadid is doing the right thing by not letting the school board continue to leave the public in the dark. Why a newspaper would advocate a governmental body keeping the public in the dark is beyond me — it seems to fly in the face of their mission.

But what do I know? I’m just one of the 113,000 stupid taxpayers in Peoria.

East Bluff, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

Journal Star questions sincerity of neighbors/parents, but not school/park boards

2 Comments

If there was ever any doubt that the paper’s editorial board is out of touch with the feelings of most Peorians, look no further than today’s paper for proof. The Journal Star has published today one of the most ridiculous and obtuse editorials I’ve ever read (and they’ve had some doozies).

The editorial is about the school siting controversy in the east bluff. The editorial is one large straw man that basically goes like this: The school board wants to help the children in the east bluff by investing $15 million in a new school, but the foolish NIMBY neighbors are trying to kill the district’s plans to help the children and make said investment; thus, the east bluff deserves to be abandoned and the money invested in a different part of town.

Were that the case, it would be easy to lambaste the neighbors for short-sighted pettiness. But the paper’s argument is a sham. To borrow the phrasing of the editorial writers, “This [editorial] has proved so disappointing on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to start.”

The Journal Star says:

When Peoria school and park district officials first unveiled their plans in late March, they waxed enthusiastic about spending $15 million on a state-of-the-art school [ . . . ] on an East Bluff that could use the investment. They thought — silly them — that they were doing something positive for the neighborhood and its children.

I guess I’ll start by stating the obvious: if the school board wants to “[do] something positive for the neighborhood and its children,” then perhaps they should try communicating with the neighbors and finding out their needs and desires instead of working behind closed doors to solve a “problem” that may not be the neighborhood’s biggest concern.

Make no mistake about it, this plan to replace school buildings did not originate with the neighborhoods. There was no groundswell of concern over the age or alleged disrepair of the buildings. In fact, the neighbors are more concerned about safety, academic achievement, and hot lunches that don’t make their children sick. No, this was a budget issue, not a response to neighborhood needs.

The Master Facility Planning Committee was established “to conduct a capacity and utilization analysis of District 150’s school buildings for use in providing guidance to the District in meeting the recommendations of the Structural Budget Imbalance (“SBI”) Task Force and maintaining and improving the District’s priority status on the 2003 State school construction grant list.” The “SBI” was established to identify $19 million in “budget savings, revenue enhancement and/or resource reallocations,” according to the April 19, 2005 school board minutes.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but the paper is making it sound like this was done solely for the purpose of “investing” in the children of the older parts of town — that the board was trying to do a “good deed.” The truth is, the school board wants to save money because they’re on the state’s financial watch list. The board believes that by shuttering 11 schools and building 6 new ones (consolidation and replacement), they can save money on maintenance and administrative costs. Now, one could make the case (and the district tries to) that these new buildings will, as an added bonus, also be a better learning environment for the children. But you can bet if there were no perceived cost savings involved, the district wouldn’t even be considering “investing” in the east bluff.

The Journal Star says this “investment” came about because of “intergovernmental cooperation of a kind all too rare in central Illinois.” This is the same paper that’s already reported that the Park Board broke the law by reaching that intergovernmental agreement in executive session, away from public scrutiny. Would that such back-door deals were indeed “all too rare.”

And that’s the point. The controversy really isn’t over the school board’s plans to replace schools — it’s over the secrecy with which the board’s plans have been executed. The Journal Star should know that. For them to say — not once, but twice — that the school board ought to abandon the east bluff because the neighbors complained about these secret plans is unreasonable and irresponsible.

And disingenuous. The paper criticizes Third-District Councilman Bob Manning for trying to use the city’s power to force the school board to listen to the neighborhood’s concerns (how dare he!). They complain that it looks to them as if he’s trying to “kill the project.” Yet, the Journal Star itself filed a complaint with the attorney general against the Park District for their illegal closed-session meeting where the intergovernmental agreement was forged. The attorney general could (although it’s admittedly unlikely) decide to reverse the Park Board’s decision as a result of their unlawful actions. So, isn’t the Journal Star complicit in the attempt to “kill the project”?

The Journal Star says they “don’t question the sincerity of school officials in trying to make Peoria a better city.” Who is? Again, this is a straw man. Neither Manning nor the neighbors are complaining about the board’s motives, but their actions. You can’t keep the public in the dark, propose a controversial school siting, threaten to take people’s property via eminent domain, then feign shock that anyone would be upset about it.

Unlike the Journal Star, I also don’t question the sincerity of East Bluff parents and their city councilman in trying to make Peoria a better city and the East Bluff a better neighborhood. I guess the paper thinks a lame-duck school board working with a secretive park board knows better than parents and residents what’s best for their neighborhood and school.

While the newspaper pines for statesmanship, the residents of Peoria long for a rival newspaper capable of expressing an informed, evenhanded, and cogent argument.

City of Peoria, East Bluff

East Bluff Scuffle

3 Comments

ravine68

Isn’t this a lovely neighborhood? Notice how the homes are nicely kept, the sidewalks are in good repair, and there’s a mailbox on the corner. Nice car & family, too, incidentally. It’s the kind of neighborhood you’d love to move into, isn’t it? Want to know where it is?

It’s the 500 block of East Ravine Avenue in 1968 (looking east, where it crosses New York Avenue). Oh, how things have changed in the last 37 years. I’d take a picture of it now so you could compare how it has gone downhill, but I don’t want to get jumped by thugs like the 19-year-old man who was walking in the 500 block of Ravine, refused to give five men his change and got beaten for it.

Take my word for it, it’s not a pretty neighborhood anymore, and that’s a shame. The sidewalks have been allowed to deteriorate for many years. Several houses have been razed, so the street is pockmarked with vacant lots. The houses that are left are almost all rentals and terribly run-down. For example, 512 E. Ravine — a two-story, three-bedroom house on the corner of Ravine and New York — sold for less than $5,000 in 2000, and is now valued at a paltry $36,000 for property tax purposes.

Bill Dennis points out that this is just four blocks away from the new MidTown Plaza, anchored by Cub Foods. They razed the vacant storefronts on Knoxville — and several owner-occupied homes on Dechman that were seized via eminent domain — and established a tax-increment finance (TIF) district to build it. Within a couple of years, Sullivan’s and John Bee’s supermarkets went out of business, and the word on the street is that Cub Foods isn’t doing too well either.

So, that attempt at gentrification didn’t work. We’ve voted out Thetford and others who voted for it, but the damage is already done. I don’t know what all the answers are, but I think code enforcement and infrastructure improvements (sidewalks, streetlights, etc.) would be a nice start (going on the broken-window theory).

I’d be interested in your feedback. What should we do to take neighborhoods like Ravine and turn them into attractive places to live again, like the picture above?