Category Archives: Peoria Journal Star

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Library

No pre-school planned for library expansion

Recently, the Journal Star reported: “The new [library] layout has areas sketched out for a preschool, small career center and even a group study room.”

It turns out that the pre-school part of that report was in error. I received this comment on one of my earlier blog entries:

I am Ed Szynaka, Library Director for the Peoria Public Library.

This is a good blog. Some infomation that might prove helpful.

The Journal Star made an error making reference to a child care center. We have no plans for a child care center. We do envision a story hour room and a very graphically attractive youth area.

Also the K merchandise building was just mentioned as an example of a possibility.

The Library Board has not accepted any plan and in fact has set aside the next 70 days for discussion, public meetings and debate of the plan. Our website will start listing meeting, times and places. We encourage everyone to participate.

I will try to answer questions on this blog as time permits.

Thanks,

Ed Szynaka
Peoria Library Director

The sketch to which I assume the Journal Star referred is this one (see original PDF here):

South Branch Concept

This is a concept drawing of how an expanded Lincoln branch could be arranged. There is an area labeled “Pre School,” but as you can see in the context of this sketch, it refers to stacks of children’s books at a pre-school reading level, not “a pre-school” that kids would attend.

My thanks to Ed Szynaka for writing and clearing things up!

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission

Why the PBC shouldn’t fund school construction

3 Comments

I read a great argument against using the Public Building Commission to fund school construction. It came from an unlikely source: the Peoria Journal Star. Of course, it was from the PJS of 15 years ago, about two years before the state legislature took away the PBC’s power to bond for school construction. Take a look at this editorial from December 1, 1991, page A8 (emphasis mine):

What would you think of a business that advertised a product or service at a specific price, and then charged you almost 70 percent more when you got to the store? You’d probably think you’d been misled. You might not shop there again. You might tell your friends not to patronize that store, either. Even if the product you bought was of high quality, it would be the principle that mattered, because you’d been lured to that store under false pretenses.

In a way, that’s what Peoria School District 150 has done with its school facilities expansion and your tax dollars.

When District 150 pitched its blueprints to the public 18 months ago, administrators said the expansion would cost about $15.5 million, the second largest capital improvement in the school district’s history. Through a series of eight public meetings, that number was repeated time and again. Hardly any opposition was voiced. The school board approved the plan; the district hired architects and began tinkering.

Suddenly the expansion of eight schools costing about $9 million became nine schools costing $13 million. Suddenly the construction of two new schools at a cost of about $3.5 million each assumed price tags of $7 million and $6 million respectively. Suddenly a $15.5 million expansion has become an estimated $26 million expansion (pending the Public Building Commission’s approval for the two new schools), the largest in District 150’s history.

District 150 can do this because, unlike virtually every other school district in central Illinois, it does not need voter approval to issue bonds to pay for new construction. That’s because it has a rich uncle at the Public Building Commission, which is subject to no one’s authority but its own. Examples like this one are why this newspaper has a philosophical objection to PBCs and the way in which they allow local governments to circumvent the will of the people who pay their bills.

Continue reading Why the PBC shouldn’t fund school construction →

City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center, Peoria Journal Star

Are corporate rates hurting Peoria hotels?

4 Comments

Former Peoria resident and mayor Bud Grieves put pen to paper again this week and wrote to the Journal Star, this time about the Civic Center expansion and new hotel feasibility study. What I found most interesting was a passing comment toward the end of his letter:

Finally, the business community has a responsibility to pay a fair price for a quality room with good service in our town. Hotels simply cannot afford the continuous investment required to keep properties up-to-date, let alone pay their staff a living wage, if area businesses think they can pay less than $100 a night for a room. Unfortunately, that has been the case for far too long in Peoria, and it must begin to change if we expect room quality to improve.

What Grieves is referring to here is the common practice of large businesses in Peoria (e.g., Caterpillar) negotiating a “corporate rate” for hotel rooms for their clients. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with this in theory — one expects to get a better price when one buys in bulk. In this case, large employers who bring in a lot of lodging business want to buy hotel rooms in bulk, as it were, and whatever hotel has the best rate gets the business.

The problem is, what if the only rate they will accept is one so low that it doesn’t allow the hotel to make enough money to pay for capital improvements? This puts Peoria hotels in a bit of a bind. They can reject the low corporate rate and lose so much business they risk going out of business themselves, or they can accept a rate that’s enough to keep them afloat but not enough to make substantial improvements to the property, thus perpetuating a downward spiral in rates.

Is Grieves right? Are the rates demanded by the business community in Peoria unrealistically low? If so, what can be done about it? And what would the implications of this practice be for a new hotel induced to locate here by tax breaks and other incentives?

Family, Peoria Journal Star

Dear PJS, thank you

Linda Fish is my first cousin, once-removed. For those of you not into genealogical terminology, that means that her mother and my grandmother were sisters. I didn’t really know Linda — her first tragic accident occurred when I was only eight years old — but her mother, my Aunt Dorothy, never fails to send me and my family birthday and anniversary cards every year. In an age of e-mail and phone calls, personal letters and cards are few and far between, so it’s always a special treat to catch up on family news when I receive Aunt Dorothy’s cards.

According to family lawyers Melbourne, it’s with great sadness that I heard about Linda’s death the other day. But the reason for this post is to thank Matt Buedel for his wonderful story about her life and family in today’s Journal Star. It was a beautiful tribute to her and the undying love of her husband. Thank you.

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

Impress with success, not new buildings

2 Comments

I understand the sentiment behind the Journal Star’s recent editorial about District 150. They say, “Somewhere in this debate, those children got lost. It is time for Peoria to find them again, for its own sake.”

I totally agree with that sentiment; I really do. I want to see the community pull together and provide the best possible education for our children. I think everyone wants that. But the editorial board’s prescription is a placebo. They whitewash over the serious issues that have led to the “general unpopularity” of the school’s decisions.

They say, “Hinton and his board have a mandate to try and rescue a declining school district,” and, “With this new school and others, they’re trying to do that.” This is the crux of the problem. What the editorial writers have stated is not the school board’s mandate, nor are the school board’s actions the way to achieve either this or their real mandate. Allow me to quote the oath of office each school board member must take before taking his or her seat on the board (105 ILCS 5/10‑16.5):

I, (name of member or successful candidate), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of member of the Board of Education of Peoria Public School District 150, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the laws of the State of Illinois, to the best of my ability.

I further swear (or affirm) that:

  • I shall respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the school district’s assets;
  • I shall encourage and respect the free expression of opinion by my fellow board members and others who seek a hearing before the board, while respecting the privacy of students and employees;
  • I shall recognize that a board member has no legal authority as an individual and that decisions can be made only by a majority vote at a public board meeting; and
  • I shall abide by majority decisions of the board, while retaining the right to seek changes in such decisions through ethical and constructive channels.

That is the school board’s real mandate. I would submit that one reason residents are up in arms over the school board is because they’ve failed in this aspect: “I shall respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the school district’s assets.”

How do the school board’s recent actions stack up against this part of the oath? They did not do due diligence in assessing the rehabilitation possibilities of their current property (viz., Glen Oak School) before they decided to build a new school on a different site (adjacent to Glen oak Park). Thus, they started spending taxpayer money on property acquisition, architects and planners without verifying a new building or additional property were warranted in the first place. They have changed the scope of their project from building a replacement school to building a community center, which has added $7 million more to the projected cost of construction. They have taken a building (Blaine-Sumner Middle School) that was slated for closure and sale to save the district money and, instead of disposing of the property as outlined in their own Master Facilities Plan, have rehabilitated it for use as an office building. These are not examples of faithfully protecting the school district’s assets.

So they’re not fulfilling their real mandate, but they’re not even fulfilling the editorial writers’ mandate. Building new school buildings is not going to “rescue a declining school district.” Sorry. Whittier was built in 1914 and is a model school, earning awards and making adequate yearly progress. Sterling was built in 1962 and is on Academic Watch Status.

But here’s what’s really strange. Whenever I mention that there is no correlation between the age of buildings and test scores, I’m always told that no one is claiming that building a new school will improve student performance. So, why build, then? What’s the purpose? Read the editorial writers carefully on this point:

To the degree that the condition of a city’s school facilities makes a statement about the value locals place on their children and their educations, Peoria does not stack up well against other Illinois communities. If there is one thing Peoria really can’t afford in a competitive environment, it’s to leave that impression.

Did you catch it? The key word is “impression.” We need to spend all this money so that we give the impression that we “locals” value our children and their education. Who cares if they actually are educated? Maybe we can fool those out-of-towners into relocating here if we blind them with our shiny buildings in the park.

That’s not a good enough justification for spending $22 million (plus $2-3 more million in acquisition/demolition costs). And it certainly doesn’t constitute finding “those children [who] got lost” in the debate. If we want to find the children, we need to start focusing on root problems instead of secondary issues like new school buildings. If we want to attract people to the city, we need to impress them with our school report cards and high test scores — then when they start moving back into town we’ll have the money to build those shiny new schools.

Peoria Journal Star

Funniest Headline of the Year

2 Comments

I hope this doesn’t appear in the print edition like this:

Scary Headline

In case you can’t see the image: the headline says “Most voters say governor should live.” The subhead says, “63 percent say it’s ‘very important’ or ‘somewhat important.'”

Well, it’s gratifying to know that most voters say the governor should live, but I’m a bit concerned about the 37% who don’t think it’s even “somewhat important.”

I can’t tell you how confused and appalled I was before realizing that this story was about the governor living in Springfield; not about the governor living in general. Once I figured it out, I couldn’t stop laughing. The headline isn’t as funny by itself, but coupled with the subhead, it cracks me up every time!

Kellar Branch, Peoria Journal Star

Journal Star cranks out fresh batch of Kellar propaganda

24 Comments

I have just a few comments to make about today’s Kellar Branch editorial. I knew when I saw a pro-rail article on Sunday that a negative editorial had to be just around the corner, and the Journal Star did not dissapoint.

Titled “Commuter rail on Kellar line a fantasy,” the Journal Star tells us to “[f]ile this [idea] under the folder marked ‘Pie in the Sky.'” This, from a newspaper that thinks a hiking trail is going to draw tourists and residents to Peoria in droves, as if a hiking trail were some sort of unique geological feature not present in every other city.

They argue that riding the train downtown would take too long. “Peoria’s the 15-minute city, remember? It’s far easier to hop in the car.” “Even if gas was $5 a gallon,” they insist, “it’s hard to believe that North Peoria and Dunlap workers and shoppers in any number would park their cars at a depot” and take the train. Yet just four months ago (May 6), they one of their reporters had this to say: “Hikers and bikers hoping to save gasoline or work off calories on the Kellar Branch trail likely won’t be using it any time soon.” (emphasis mine) So, apparently, the Journal Star trail advocates believes that people will park their cars at a trail access point, walk or bike in the elements to their workplace or to go shopping, all in an effort to save gas. But they won’t go to an enclosed depot, get on a climate-controlled train, and ride it to work or go shopping. Somehow, that plan isn’t “Pie in the Sky.”

The next line is killer: “Beyond that, who’s going to pay for this? Where’s the feasibility study? If private sector folks were convinced they could do this without courting bankruptcy, they’d be lining up, wouldn’t they?” Ironically, Pioneer Railcorp, a private business, has already offered to pay for it. They’ve been lining up to purchase the line, provide freight service, help build the trail, and provide commuter/tourist train service. And they’ve had that offer on the table for two years. The city would get $565,000 for the line, $100,000 in help building the trail, yet the Journal Star implies this private development would be costlier to the taxpayer than ripping out the half-million dollar asset and leasing the whole right-of-way to the Park District for $1/year for 99 years! And speaking of feasibility studies, where is the Park District’s?

“Let’s call this proposal what it is: a misguided attempt to try to derail plans for a Kellar branch hiking/biking trail,” they say. First of all, let’s not mix metaphors. The hiking/biking trail proponents are the ones who want to “de-rail” the Kellar Branch. Secondly, that statement is patently untrue. Those who want to save the Kellar rail line are in favor of a trail side-by-side with the rail line. Pioneer has even offered to donate $100,000 in equipment and labor toward building the trail! Ignorance is bliss at 1 News Plaza. The Journal Star seems to be exhibiting a martyr complex.

This statement is puzzling: “The more shrill opponents erroneously assert that anyone who supports a Kellar hiking trail must then oppose trains, as if rail and trail were arch-enemies. Wrong. Central Illinois’ freight rail infrastructure greatly benefits the region.” This, after they just finished falsely accusing commuter rail proponents of opposing trails! Add projection to the martyr complex. And who are these “shrill opponents” of whom they speak?

“But let’s not kid ourselves. Peoria isn’t […] Napa Valley, Calif., drawing the tens of thousands of customers necessary to sustain a tourism train.” Did you know the Journal Star was an expert on how many customers are necessary to sustain a tourist train? I’m sure they’ve done an exhaustive feasibility study on this. Pioneer Railcorp actually owns and operates a tourist train in Gettysburg, Penn. Who do you think is in a better position to guage the feasibility of this plan — Pioneer or the Journal Star?

I won’t bother typing out the final paragraph as it’s just a summary of their faulty reasoning. Whether or not you believe commuter rail is feasible, at least it would be provided by a private company and the city would derive the proceeds of over a half-million dollars for the line. And if commuter service fails, the city would still have freight rail service and a trail alongside the rail line. So, what is there to lose?

Amtrak, Kellar Branch, Peoria Journal Star

Hell freezes over: Journal Star runs pro-rail article

11 Comments

Two of them, actually. You can read them here and here. Kudos to the editors for publishing some pro-rail information for a change.

Steve Tarter, who I recently learned is a railfan, wrote both articles. The latter one even talks favorably about running a rail and trail side-by-side on the Kellar Branch. This idea had been suggested years ago, but was rejected by the Park District based on a “feasibility study” that was supposedly done showing it would be cost-prohibitive.

Funny thing, when asked to produce said feasibility study, the Park District was never able to provide a copy. Sharon Deckard of the Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation (IPRRF) asked for a copy at the time and never got one, and I asked for a copy about a year ago and was told the so-called “feasibility study” consisted of “engineering drawings” and a spreadsheet — a spreadsheet that the park district couldn’t currently locate. Huh.

It was suggested at the meeting that the IPRRF do its own feasibility study, and that may happen soon. I joked that all we really need to do is confidently assert that we’ve done one that shows the project is completely feasible. Then if the park district challenges us on it, we offer to show them our feasibility study once they show us theirs. Ha!

Seriously, though, one could get the impression from reading the article that commuter rail is the main reason IPRRF wants to save the Kellar Branch. But truth is, the main reason to keep the Kellar Branch is for hauling freight, not passenger rail. Freight service on the Kellar Branch line will allow rail-served businesses to be courted for Pioneer Park and Growth Cell Two, which would bring more jobs into Peoria.

Passenger rail could very likely be a future additional use of the tracks. But right now, as much as I love passenger rail, I’m going to have to agree with my readers (and disagree with IPRRF) that it’s probably not very realistic to have commuter rail in Peoria at this time, other than intercity transit.

What is feasible now? I’d like to see Amtrak service restored to Peoria. I’d even be happy with a diesel-powered trolley car that would run between Galesburg and Normal via Peoria to take passengers to those Amtrak stations, although I’d prefer a more direct route between Chicago and St. Louis, of course.

Kellar Branch, Peoria Journal Star

Journal Star does it again

3 Comments

The Journal Star has another Kellar Branch editorial. I can’t help but respond to their erroneous assertions and half-truths:

The start out by saying, “Depending on how the federal government rules, Peoria’s decaying Kellar branch rail line may either become a hiking/biking trail or be forced to reopen for rail service.” Notice there’s no mention (of course) of Pioneer Industrial Railroad’s offer to provide rail service and help build the trail next to the rail line. In the Journal Star’s mind, it’s either/or, one or the other. Too bad they can’t be more open-minded.

Then they proceed to look at the many and various cost estimates for bringing the rail line up to operable condition. After glossing over the three different cost estimates the city submitted ranging from $50,000 to $2 million, they have this little gem:

Meanwhile, Pioneer Railcorp, Kellar’s jilted carrier, apparently thinks it can make the line shine for just under $10,000, which would just about cover a few bushes and some other landscaping in someone’s yard. It’s not credible. Removing the monster weeds alone covering the tracks would take an army, and you know what the military-industrial complex charges these days.

Ah yes, local employer Pioneer Railcorp — the one that wants to buy the line for over $500,000 which would sure come in handy down at City Hall, the one that wants to lure more businesses to Pioneer Park and Growth Cell Two by providing reliable rail service, the one that has offered to rehab the line at their own expense, the one that successfully and profitably ran the line for seven years, the one that provided an itemized and detailed quote for track repair — they’re the ones who are nothing more than a “jilted carrier” and whose repair quote is “not credible.”

But the city, who hired non-local carrier Central Illinois Railroad Co. — the company that couldn’t get a load of lumber up the Kellar Branch, the company that had a runaway train that endangered the lives of Peorians, the company that never successfully or profitably ran the Kellar line, the company that broke their contract with the city, the company that is costing Carver Lumber considerably more in shipping because of said breach of contract, the company that provided a vague, non-itemized, unsigned quote for track repair — their estimate for service is somehow more credible, according to Peoria’s newspaper of record.

It’s so ironic that the city is fighting so hard, spending so much money on lawyers, and for what? So they can waste more money by tearing out a $565,000 asset. Good grief!

As for the “monster weeds” the paper worries would be so expensive to remove — has the Journal Star ever heard of Roundup? I would think one trip down the tracks in a service truck with a sprayer would take care of that problem.

But perhaps the most hopeful comment is the final one: “The city and village should explain their math [to the Surface Transportation Board] in detail, pronto, to dispel the confusion and not risk jeopardizing their credibility or the trail’s prospects.” My friend David Jordan believes this indicates that the Journal Star is starting to worry that the city may not win their case with the STB. I just think it’s funny that they can’t see that the city has already “jeopardized their credibility,” and not just with the STB.

City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star

Everybody’s the exception

8 Comments

Phil Luciano’s article today once again highlights the no-win situation of city code enforcers. You know, if they don’t enforce the law on the petty issues, people complain about them not doing their jobs and wax eloquent about how important it is to fix problems when they’re small so bigger violations aren’t likely to happen (aka the “broken window theory”). But if they do enforce the little issues, then people like Phil Luciano complain that (a) the ordinance is stupid, and/or (b) this person who’s breaking the ordinance should be an exception.

In this particular case, apparently Phil thinks that code violation officers, upon seeing someone violating some ordinance, should immediately find out how much money the person has put into their house, interview the person to see if they have a justified reason for breaking the ordinance, perhaps interview a few neighbors to see how they feel about it, and then make an informed decision on whether to enforce the law or not based on those factors. Most importantly, if the person threatens to move, immediately tear up the citation and allow them to break any code they want.

Obviously, the problem is that everyone has an excuse for breaking an ordinance. Rare is the person who flagrantly violates the law without some reason for doing so, no matter how flimsy that reason may be. I’m sure code enforcement officers have heard them all.

Question: Do we want the code enforced? If not, let’s get these ordinances off the books. If so, stop complaining when the code enforcement officers do their jobs.