Category Archives: Peoria Police

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Police

Ordinance against loud motorcycles should be enforced

4 Comments

I disagree with Bill Dennis on whether the noise ordinance should pass the council tonight (I think it should pass), but I agree with one thing he said: “an overly loud motorcycle wakes people up in the middle of the night just like a ‘boom-car’ does.”

When Police Chief Settingsgaard spoke at the Uplands Residential Association meeting, several people brought up the fact that loud motorcycles were much more of a nuisance in our neighborhood than boom cars. In fact, we meet in a basement in the center of a church with thick walls, and during the meeting we could clearly hear a loud motorcycle go by, but at no point did we hear any boom cars.

What the chief told us was that (1) there’s already an ordinance against loud pipes on motorcycles, but that (2) it is not enforced. Why isn’t it enforced? The police have not received any complaints about it. Councilwoman Van Auken, who was also at the meeting, said she’s never received a complaint from a constituent on loud motorcycles either.

The chief likened this issue to the jaywalking situation in town not long ago. Jaywalking laws are not usually enforced either, and no one generally complains about it. When someone did complain and the police enforced jaywalking laws one day, Peorians got all in a tizzy about it. So now you’ll have to forgive him for being a bit gun-shy about enforcing the loud motorcycle ordinance.

However, if you really want to see that ordinance enforced, call the police and complain. Loudly. If the police know that this is an issue that bothers Peorians (not just one, but many), they will respond. Their number is 673-4521.

City of Peoria, Peoria Police

Should Peoria not be hospitable?

An elderly couple just going out for a walk here in Peoria were approached by a young man who asked to use their phone. They let the man in, and he hid in the couple’s bathroom. Soon, the police arrived. It turns out the man had just robbed the Subway restaurant in Northwoods Mall.

The elderly couple was obviously shaken by this turn of events, and the Journal Star’s account of the incident includes this quote from the couple and advice from the police:

“You can’t be nice anymore,” the [elderly] man said. “You don’t know what you’re getting into. If the police hadn’t come in, I don’t know what would have happened.”

[Police Lt. Jeff] Adams echoed that and asked people not to let strangers into their homes.

“You’ve got a guy who has just committed a robbery,” Adams said. “If the police hadn’t been around, this could have turned bad quick.”

Isn’t that sad? “Letting strangers into your home” is what used to be known as “showing hospitality.” Now, the police are essentially saying that Peoria is so unsafe that we are being asked not to practice hospitality.

But is not allowing strangers into our homes the solution . . . or the problem? Maybe we should have more strangers in our houses — like the strangers who live next door. Do we know our neighbors? Could it be that our isolation has made us less rather than more secure?

And what about that stranger that asks to use your phone? Maybe you could engage him in conversation and try to find out a little about why he’s calling and where he’s going. If he sounds suspicious, by all means, don’t let him in your house. But maybe you can offer to let him use your cordless phone or cell phone — outside. You can still show kindness while trying to minimize your risk.

I remember many years ago when I was just a teenager and my car broke down on War Memorial Drive one Sunday evening. I had to go up to a nearby house and ask to use the phone. I sure am thankful a kind lady let this stranger into her house to use her phone, or it would have been a long walk home! Sometimes the stranger who asks to use your phone really just needs to use the phone.

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Police

PJS throwing stones in their glass house

6 Comments

The Journal Star, apparently trying to give police chief Settingsgaard a taste of his own “shaming” medicine, slapped the word “GUILTY” in bold red letters across his face in today’s editorial. His crime? “[W]anton disregard for basic fairness by continuing to post the name and photo of a Bloomington man on the city’s prostitution Web site, even though he was acquitted of sex solicitation by a jury of his peers.”

In contrast, the Bloomington man, whose name is Samuel T. Clay, has printed next to his name on the Peoria PD’s website in bold red letters, “Not Guilty.” You see, as has been pointed out by others already, the pictures on the PD website are pictures of those arrested for solicitation, not those convicted.

This is something the Journal Star itself does regularly. For instance, just today they printed the names of several individuals who were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Even if the charges are dismissed, they still print the person’s name and state that the charges were dismissed. What’s the difference between that and what the Peoria PD is doing on their website?

Here’s another example. When DOT Rail owner Donny Lee Gibson was arrested for allegedly trying to hire someone to kill his wife, the Journal Star didn’t have any qualms about printing that arrest, even though he was never convicted of that charge.

Apparently the only arrests that are verboten by the Journal Star are solicitation arrests. Why should these be treated differently than every other arrest? Stigma? I think murder-for-hire carries a pretty bad stigma, too. I wouldn’t want to be accused of either.

In my opinion, the Journal Star should get off Settingsgaard’s back. If those prostitutes were anywhere near where the editors of the PJS live, they’d be singing Settingsgaard’s praises for cracking down hard on them and their customers instead of boldly holding up a double-standard.

City Council, Peoria Police

Where’s the scorn for enforcement of handicapped parking?

3 Comments

Remember how radio personalities, city council members, and office water-cooler gatherers laughed and scorned the Peoria police for their enforcement of jaywalkers just a few days ago?  Oh, how ridiculous, they said.  That law is dumb, they scoffed.  The police should be focusing on real crime instead of just trying to score some easy income from fines.

Where was all that scorn when this story came out about handicapped parking?

Peoria hiked its fine from $200 to $350 and also launched a crackdown dubbed “Operation Helping Hands.”

A parking enforcement officer was assigned to randomly check handicapped spaces throughout the city and issue tickets, and police officers were instructed to step up enforcement in their districts.

An organized crackdown?  Higher fines?  An officer specifically assigned to do nothing but “randomly check handicapped spaces throughout the city and issue tickets”?  Where are all the armchair police chiefs decrying this waste of department resources?  Is this really more important than all that “real crime” they were castigated for not fighting just a few days ago?  Why didn’t Councilman Morris have anything to say about the “heavy-handedness” of upping the fine to $350?  Doesn’t he think the police should just hand out warnings to handicapped-parking scofflaws?  Why didn’t Councilman Sandberg point out that able-bodied people often use their handicapped relative’s placards so they can park close, and then argue that this loophole invalidates the whole system?

See, people really do think that ordinances are worthy of being enforced, even though they’re not “real crime” and aren’t always foolproof — they just don’t want the police to enforce ordinances they don’t like.  That’s understandable for radio personalities and water-cooler loiterers, but the city council should have stood up for the police like Barbara Van Auken did a week ago.  In fact, I think several council members owe the police an apology for castigating them for doing their job.

City Council, Peoria Police, Traffic

Council Roundup: Jaywalking and “W. B.” Grayeb

Councilwoman Van Auken expressed appreciation for the Peoria Police and defended their enforcement of laws against jaywalking.  She suggested that if people think jaywalking laws are stupid, perhaps they should work on repealing such laws.  And that was the last sensible comment made on the subject.

Following Van Auken, several council members scoffed at the police doing their jobs by acting on citizen concerns and issuing tickets to scofflaws.  Reasons? 

There are more important crimes on which they should be focusing, one said.  Yes.  And there are more important crimes than speeding and seat belt violators, but they set up stings for those all the time.  Not compelling.

Another was concerned that it will drive pedestrians away from downtown.  I never realized that running across a busy street while dodging cars was the definition of “pedestrian friendly.”  One wonders why we bother putting up Walk/Don’t Walk signals all over town with countdowns and everything if they’re such an impediment to a pleasant pedestrian experience.  Let’s be real friendly and require pedestrians to take their lives in their hands on all busy streets!

Still another council person thought it was too heavy-handed of a response to write tickets.  I suppose they could have handed out warnings, especially since they had never enforced jaywalking before, so I’ll give them that one.

But then there was my favorite reason:  the law is too difficult to understand.  Yep.  That was one of Morris’s and Sandberg’s complaints.  I guess there are some loopholes in the jaywalking law (what law doesn’t have loopholes?), and because of that, we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, according to these two council members.  If this discussion hadn’t gotten completely ridiculous prior to this point, it crossed the line here.

But just when you thought it couldn’t get any goofier, “W. B.” Grayeb chimed in.  You know what the “W. B.” stands for, don’t you?  Yep, you guessed it: “Water Buyout.”  This is the only issue Grayeb cares about anymore.  All discussions come back around to the water buyout, somehow, some way.  We got our weekly report on how RWE (did you know they’re foreign owned?) isn’t going to be selling American Water Company in pieces.

I’ll revisit “W. B.” Grayeb in a future post.

Peoria Police, Traffic

Peorians are passionate about their jaywalking

2 Comments

Why the uproar over the crackdown on jaywalking? There can be no doubt that it’s rampant in Peoria. 

I see two little girls cross Forrest Hill about 20 feet west of Sheridan Road so they can get to their school bus stop at the corner of Forrest Hill and Sheridan.  Wouldn’t it be safer for them to cross at the light?  I don’t remember much from geometry class, but I think it’s pretty clear that they would be walking the same distance, and since they only cross when traffic is stopped for the red light anyway, they’re not saving any time either.

Then there’s Knoxville where little kids up to grown adults cross the street wherever they feel like it, often causing traffic to brake to avoid a collision.  Right around Cub Foods it’s especially bad, although the whole strip between McClure and interstate sees its fair share of jaywalkers.  Not long ago, a young boy on his bike lost his life at the corner of Knoxville and Forrest Hill for crossing against the light.

So what’s the big deal about the police enforcing jaywalking laws?  I mean, isn’t that why we have police — to enforce the law?  Isn’t that why we have a jaywalking ordinance — to keep people from jaywalking?

Greg and Dan on WMBD radio’s morning show scoffed — and I mean scoffed — at the idea of police enforcing these laws.  They’re defense? 

“Everybody does it.” 

“There are more important things the police should be focusing on.” 

“We’re adults and know how to cross the street; we needn’t be treated like children.”

“Pedestrians who get hit are punished enough; they don’t need a ticket.” 

Chief Settingsgaard came on the show just before 8:00 and even he agreed that jaywalking was a cultural thing in Peoria.  Residents here apparently don’t mind because they don’t complain about it, and the recent crackdown was only in response to a complaint.

Great! Can we please use this same logic on seat belt use?  I bet the police don’t get any complaints from citizens that other people aren’t wearing seat belts, and I bet most people wouldn’t care if that law were never enforced.  There are more important things the police could be focusing on, and adults should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to buckle up.  And certainly the schmo who gets in an accident without his seat belt on will suffer enough without getting a ticket.  If there were ever the perfect example of a nanny-state law, that’s it.

Yet in contrast, the police actually set up roadblocks to check motorists for seat belt use.  Last summer, there were numerous “safety checks.”  Where was the outcry then?  It’s surprising to me that Peorians hold jaywalking as a fundamental right, but are willing to tolerate invasion of their privacy on seat belt matters.

My suggestion:  if jaywalking is not important, repeal all ordinances making it a crime.  Problem solved.  Otherwise, I say let the police do their job and enforce it, and stop whining about it.  That’s what they tell me whenever I complain about seat belt laws.Â