In Tuesday’s general election, we’ll be picking five at-large City Council candidates to represent Peoria for the next four years. Since Chuck Grayeb and John Morris are not running for reelection, there are just three incumbents and seven newcomers vying for the five seats. In the primary election, I only endorsed three candidates: Gary Sandberg, George Jacob, and Dan Irving. I’m sticking with those candidates and adding two more: Jim Montelongo and Dan Gillette.
Gary Sandberg has a simple, consistent philosophy: city government exists to provide basic essential services in the most cost effective, efficient manner to keep taxes low. He has proven himself to vote consistently with that philosophy. He should be retained.
George Jacob was surprised when he learned that I endorsed him in the primary. It’s nice to know I’m not too predictable. In addition to what I said in my primary endorsement, there are some other things that make Jacob a good choice. He supports attracting manufacturing jobs to Peoria. Many candidates talk about the creative class and the med-tech jobs we want to attract, and those are certainly important. But we need to be a city that has jobs for everyone, and jobs in all parts of the city — not just the north end or the second district. Having good head-of-household jobs in and near the older neighborhoods (and I would say especially the south end) is as important for stabilization as dealing with crime.
Dan Irving has not let his eighth-place finish in the primary election dampen his optimism or resolve. Rather, he has campaigned even harder. It’s paid off — he picked up endorsements from Congressman LaHood, Mayor Ardis, several council members, and even the Journal Star. I have to admit, some of these endorsements caused me to briefly rethink my own endorsement of him. But based on the priority he puts on core services (fire, police) and his support for older neighborhoods (through the Heart of Peoria Plan and other initiatives), I feel confident he would make a good addition to the council and would work to move Peoria in the right direction.
Dan Gillette is the underdog in this race. He didn’t actually win in the primary, but got into the race when ninth-place finisher Charles Schierer dropped out. Gillette provides an insider’s view to the council. Having worked for the city in the public works department, it should come as no surprise that his campaign slogan is to have a “clean, safe city.” He’s familiar with the city’s budget, which means he won’t have the kind of learning curve your average new councilman has. He will be able to get right to work looking for ways to use taxpayer’s money more efficiently. And he’s clearly an essential services candidate.
I really had a hard time coming up with a fifth endorsement. I’m passionate about supporting “essential services first” candidates because I feel the city has gotten away from its core responsibilities. For their tax dollars, citizens at minimum expect — I’ll go so far as to say “deserve” — adequate fire and police protection and well-maintained infrastructure (streets, sewers, etc.). When a council continues to subsidize parking decks while simultaneously underfunding the fire department — and defends that decision — we have a serious problem.
Jim Montelongo is not what I would consider an essential-services-first candidate. But I’m endorsing him because of his strong stance on crime. It appears that this is the issue about which he’s most concerned. He’s a proponent of the “broken window theory” of police enforcement, which was successful in New York under Rudolf Giuliani. I think there’s something to be said for geographic diversity on the council, so the fact that he lives in the fourth district is a plus. I’m a little nervous about the more progressive parts of his platform (e.g., installing fiber optic lines city-wide), but I believe those ideas will be tempered by the budget realities of GASB-45 and other high-priced obstacles facing the city now.
As for the rest of the candidates, Eric Turner lost any modicum of support from me when he defended the MidTown Plaza TIF and development on WCBU’s “Lunch with the Candidates” series. Ryan Spain is passionate about economic development, which is his job at Heartland Partnership, but he lacks knowledge of and depth on the other planks in his platform. Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald would make a better school board candidate, since that is where her experience lies. Gale Thetford was the architect of the $6 garbage fee as well as the driving force behind Mid-Town Plaza; no way should she be allowed back on the council. Patti Sterling-Polk‘s platform is entirely too vague. I’m not clear what her priorities would be if elected.
Whoever you decide to vote for, I encourage you all to vote on April 17.
In the run up to the formation of the Med-Tech district, three neighborhoods chose not to participate. The reasons cited were that they were stable, successful neighborhoods that didn’t need fixing and that they should be protected (by opting out). Their decisions to opt out were hailed by pro-neighborhood, essential services, politicians as the correct choice.
Stable neighborhoods should be protected. We were betrayed.
This is going to be a tough decision for me this year but the vote to demolish the Arbors is inexcusable. Sandberg and Jacobs lost my vote when they voted in favor of a parking deck in lieu of a stable neighborhood. They undermined the spirit of an important ordinance. They betrayed the trust neighborhoods placed in them. They failed to defend a neighborhood that was WORTH defending as an example of what a Heart of Peoria neighborhood SHOULD be. They voted a neighborhood a death sentence that no Arbor will fix.
Montelongo over Spain. CJ. not a good choice and I say this because Jim has no interst in our older neighborhoods. He hasn’t been here, he hasn’t walked here. The broken window theory only showed up in his newsletter, not on the campaign. I have seen Spain grow a great deal already in his campaign from the beginning until now and he has already been out helping in a variety of projects and in neighborhoods. I’m telling you, if they aren’t going to show up during a campaign, they certainly aren’t going to show up ever. Did you speak to each of these candidates about HOP. Spain knows it, Montelongo doesn’t. You’ve been digging in your heels over Spain since the beginning. Action over words every time. I think Montelongo’s a bad call unless you have stock in Iwire.
Well, first of all, I’d say the fourth district is closer to our older neighborhoods than the fifth district. And he most certainly did mention the broken-window theory during his campaign. I sat in the audience and heard him talk about it.
As for Spain, I don’t think he’s ready to be a councilman. While he’s strong in his support of economic development, I don’t feel like he’s as settled on other issues (crime, neighborhoods). I get the impression he’s still sorting through the different ideas on how to address them and hasn’t decided exactly where to land yet, other than to offer up vague and obvious statements (“crime is a problem that needs to be dealt with”). To that extent, I think he’s an unpredictable candidate, which means I find him too high-risk.
Considering he’s probably going to win, though, I hope you’re right and I’m wrong.
I definately think that Spain deserves to be in the top five. He offers a perspective that will be a benefit to the group. Plus, he’s clearly done his homework in preparation for the position.
I waffle back and forth on Sandberg because despite the “consistency” and “basic city services” approach that many laud, I have a hard time with someone of his experience and intellect not finding a way to be more of a consensus builder and leader on the Council. True, he’s entertaining, but I can get entertainment from any cable show — it’s not needed on the City Council. That being said, I really value what he does bring to the Council – questioning attitude, factual historical information, and a different view. But interesting to me is that no matter who gets in the Mayor’s seat, he quickly has a run-in with them and develops a poor relationship. I guess I won’t know until the a.m. if I vote for him.
Jacob – I can go with but I’m still a little concerned about the state legislation change that was masterminded to get him on the City Council and the number of issues on which he has to abstain.
Irving has worked his backside off and has impressed me. I think he’ll be a major contributor to the City Council.
Montelongo – I can take or leave him but feel he’ll do well. His business experience is clearly needed on the City Council.
Thetford – would make a good readdition to the City Council. Don’t always agree with her, but with the current mix, I think her prior experience would be an asset and a liability. But of all the “bad” decisions she’s been tagged as championing, I add again that she was only one vote and it took at least five more to pass each of the ordinances/budget actions.
Gillette – has about much less of the experience that he actually touts. It’s interesting that no one dug a little deeper into his “City” experience to find out how spotty and limited it really was. I don’t see him contributing much to the group. He deserves the 11th place slot he received.
On the remainder, I generally agree with your assessment. None have made a compelling case for voting for them.
I am sorry you fell that way about Spain CJ. I think the guy has more going for him than some of the people that are sitting on the council now. I respect your picks but leaving Spain out is a mistake. I know, you haven’t like him from day one and you are going to tell me that you listened to him with an open mind. I just don’t believe it.
Don’t take it personally, Emtronics. 🙂
No, I’m sure you won’t believe me, because you’re right — I haven’t supported his candidacy from the beginning. But I did go back and reconsider my earlier views about him. I talked to him, reread his campaign literature, and did try to listen with an open mind. I have changed my views a little, for what it’s worth. I’m no longer cynical towards him. I don’t think he’s another Aaron Schock or just using this as a stepping stone to higher office. I think he’s sincere. So maybe you can consider that somewhat of a victory. 😉
Hot damn 🙂
Cj,
I spent about 4 hours interviewing Mr. Montelongo. I left the meeting deeply concerned that he would not in fact be invested in our older neighborhoods. At the time, he had only walked in the fourth district, did not have an understanding of the needs in south side, east bluff, center bluff or west bluff. I am concerned that no one I’ve talked to in the neighborhoods so far has not met with him outside of a forum on their turf. It may have happened, It just haven’t gotten to anyone yet. These things are very concerning. I think he had some good ideas about volunteerism, which is important. We talked about his philosophy in running the city. He wanted to focus on going one direction, which was positive, but didn’t think that we could could actually use aspects of a couple of philosopies to make things better, which is reality.
Broken window theory has been used by the Chief since his arrival, it has it’s good and bad points to it.
I was concerned that he wanted to manage things verses doing things. I know we disagree on a few items, but there needs to be action in these parts of town, too much discussion.
I really, think he would be a better fourth district candidate than one to represent the city. This was based on the lengthy interview, reading the various questionaires, and attending a variety of forums. We need someone who will be involved in the entire city.
Additionally, this north/south divide must end. It is being fostered by leaders and people are buying into it. Leaders need to be about joining people together, not division. It’s tempting and easy to do, I have to catch myself as well. It is not the people’s fault that 50million is being spent out there in capital improvement, the leaders vote on the budget. I also had an interesting discussion tonight. For those concerned about the rambling growth. look at the last 23-26 annexation votes( I forget the exact number) and notice the votes for them by current council members. There is a little discord between the votes and the speeches.
Anyway, I stand by Spain, Irving, and Jacob.
Montelongo would not be my choice at all. I don’t see any leadership qualities in him. Paul hit the nail on the head. I just don’t see much action in him. Talking yes, action no. We need leaders and people with deep understanding on what this City needs.