The agenda for tonight’s meeting isn’t too exciting, although there are a few potentially volatile issues. There’s a really long consent agenda (A through GG, or 33 items), which is to be expected after the council hasn’t met for three weeks.
District 150 is on the agenda — there’s an item requesting the creation of a Neighborhood Impact Zone (NIZ) around Glen Oak School and revision of the timeline for implementing other such zones. You may recall that the NIZ plan is a partnership between the City of Peoria and District 150 (and possibly Tri-County Regional Planning) to “collectively provide resources to stabilize and enhance the two square block area surrounding the school site to provide a safe, vibrant, attractive neighborhood.” I wonder if any council members will take that opportunity to question the school board’s shortening of the school day for 12 primary schools. I mean, the city has committed no small amount of time, effort, and money toward this initiative, the idea being to stabilize neighborhoods and ultimately draw more families into District 150. If the D150 administration is going to undermine those efforts by reducing teacher contact time and arts and music programs, one has to wonder if this is the best use of the city’s funds after all.
The “Knoxville Crossing” strip mall is going to be taken off the table tonight. This project is way out north on the west side of Knoxville/Route 40, north of Alta Rd., south of Wilhelm Rd. It had been tabled a few weeks ago because the neighbors opposed the project. According to the Journal Star, they’re still unhappy about it, but feel the development is inevitable:
Liverpool Drive resident Tim Sander said on Wednesday, “I don’t think anyone really wants it. (Neighbors) know they can’t stop it, but they’re trying to get the best they can as far as keeping their quality of life.”
Developers have the public trained well, don’t they? Neighbors don’t even put up a fight anymore. They have plenty of reasons to believe such a fight would be futile (Glen Hollow, Midtown Plaza, to name just a couple).
One might question why we need more big box stores and strip mall storefronts when we have so many empty ones already. Does the city ever do any kind of cost/revenue analysis to see if this is going to be a net gain or loss for the city? This will put pressure on the city to use limited funds to upgrade the infrastructure in that area, and yet what new businesses will it be bringing into the area? How much tax revenue will it generate? If businesses are just going to move from one area to another within the city leaving vacant storefronts in their wake, the city ends up losing money because they’re not gaining enough net sales tax revenue to sustain all the northern growth.
Of course, the big thing on the agenda tonight is Elliott’s strip club asking for a liquor license again. If the council denies it as the Liquor Commission has recommended, you can bet that the taxpayers will end up paying dearly for it. I actually agree with the Journal Star’s editorial on this issue. The fact is, the strip club isn’t going away even if they don’t get a liquor license, and it will undeniably lead to a lawsuit that the city will almost assuredly lose. I’d rather not add insult to injury by having my tax money go to Elliott’s. Let this one go and work on some sort of ordinance that will keep this sort of thing from happening in the future.
I think it’s quite clear we do NOT need any more “big box” stores or strip malls in this town. Taxpayers should not be spending a dime to encourage this phony “development”. We should be looking for ways to fill the many vacant buildings. And they are all over – not just in the “inner city”.
That is not the way free enterprise works in this country. If someone owns a piece of land and they want to put a building on it and open a legal business to compete with another business that is their right. Who is to say we don’t need another store. Does this go for restaurants also? Who makes this decision for us, our elected officials? Do they get to tell us what grocery stores we get to shop at? It is in the owners of those vacant buildings best interest to get them leased. They still pay property taxes on them full or not. That is so stupid to even think we should allow the government to decide if we need another business in town.
So Peoriafan, it is acceptable to let any would be developer to incur additional costs to the taxpayer in the form of poorly support sprawl, urban decay, resulting in higher taxes, without the consent of the taxpayer? I think not. The public most certainly does have a vested interest in the nature of the marketplace.
“It is in the owners of those vacant buildings best interest to get them leased.”
Is it? You do realize that losses incurred are deductible. How exactly does that reconcile with the vast empty spaces that litter the heart of Peoria closer to the river? These spaces that have been empty for decades.
“They still pay property taxes on them full or not.”
Um you do realize that an empty, decaying store front, pays less in taxes as the property is worth considerably less. There isn’t much incentive to keep the place up if it is going to sit empty. Why would a business bother with fixing it up. There is a bright shiney new one over yonder.
I concur with Peorianfan. Protectionism does not work in the global economy and it does not work in Peoria. Businesses want to locate where the people and the money are. North Knoxville/Rt. 40 and the surrounding area is where a huge population lives and travels. That population should not have to drive to restaurants, grocery stores, and other service providers in order to keep the rest of Peoria afloat.
Restriction of residential and commercial enterprise will not cure what ails Peoria. Fix the schools and you will alleviate what plagues Peoria.
But Frustrated… the people moving to the edge of Peoria are moving there to be away from all of that. They don’t want to live near commercial enterprises.
Frustrated, in point of fact, the vast majority of people living out that way have to drive to restaurants, grocery stores as it is. And from what they tell me, they like it that way. This was one of many reasons we’ve ruled out living in this area.
I certainly understand why property owners would be upset about commercial establishments being built in their backyard, however, I live off N. Knoxville and was thrilled to learn an Avanti’s was coming to my side of town, that there is a couple of good pizza joints nearby, and that the Panera’s and the Kroger are located just down the road. As a working mother, convenience is important to me.
And let’s not kid ourselves, people locate in North Peoria because of the new housing stock available there, the safety of the area, and the perceived ability to get away “from all that” and the all that is not just commercial activity.
Have the city council members live in 61615. Is that right?
Stupid mean to say “half” not “have”. du ha, da ha.
What grounds does Elliot’s have to sue? A liquor license is a privilege not a right. They haven’t moved their building to meet code, have they?
All those moving north… ha ha ha… they are wasting more and more gas every day!
“As a working mother, convenience is important to me.”
If that were true, you would not have move out there in the first place.
kcdad — I haven’t read the complaint, but I’m going to guess that the grounds are that their rights to equal protection under the law were violated, and that the liquor commission’s/city council’s decision to deny was arbitrary and capricious. The city can’t just deny liquor licenses willy nilly. They have some sort of rational basis for denying it, and the rules have to be applied consistently to all those who apply for liquor licenses. The proximity issue was settled when they divided the building.
I don’t think people remember or realize that the Knolls was once on the edge of town and Sheridan Village was the Shoppes of Grand Prairie of its day. People will keep moving out and business will follow. I love living in the center of town with all the business’s close by. It takes me 5 minutes to get to a grocery store or Walgreen’s. If I moved out North (which I won’t) I would want those same conveniences.
As a property owner I would much rather have a tenant in my property than let it sit empty.
I do get a kick out people thinking that if they move out North they are escaping from all the problems. There are issues and problems wherever you live. If you move North you are just going to experience other issues like bad roads that can’t handle the traffic, long commute to shop and work, high taxes and yes, there IS crime out north also.
We also live less than 10 minutes from any of the three hospitals and fire stations and as we found out recently, that stuff does matter.
I can still afford to drive my SUV as I have a ten minute commute to work.
Quote: “That is not the way free enterprise works in this country. If someone owns a piece of land and they want to put a building on it and open a legal business to compete with another business that is their right.”
Wrong… the state governemnt has enacted laws to control the use of land. City/County gov is allowed to establish plans which achieve a local/regional land use objective. This may mean that you own land, but are only permitted certain types of use or must build a certain way. You do not have the right to build whatever you want on your land because it will directly (if I’m a neighbor) or indirectly (if I’m a resident of your City/County) affect the quality of my life through pollution, crime, noise, public service allocation, traffic impacts, sewer impacts, water system impacts.
If you disagree with these codes, please write your state representative and ask him/her to repeal the enabling legislation.
Quote: “If I moved out North (which I won’t) I would want those same conveniences.”
And there lies the problem. If you wanted those conveniences, why did you move out north? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
What I said is in reference to what Mouse said about not needing anymore big box stores or strip malls. Who is to decide whether we “need” another big box store? My point was if I own a piece of land and want to build a legal building that meets all codes and zoning laws I should be able to even if it meant that I was going to leave another building empty somewhere else. It is not the government’s right to say we don’t think you should move and build new or expand or open a new business because there are too many of those kinds of businesses already and we don’t want anymore. You can’t build a new pizza place because we have 5 already and 6 would be too much and may hurt the others.
mahkno – nice try. I used to live in the Knolls and wanted to live no where else. But . . . I moved out North to be within the boundaries of Kellar Primary because Thomas Jefferson’s school that serves the Knolls was a poor performing school. See my first blog under this topic – fix the schools, fix the problem.
Frustrated:
TJ has become one of the higher performing District 150 schools. Unfortunately, the shortened school day will undo any gains the schools were making.
Contrarian – I am glad to hear TJ is improving. My kids are in middle school now, so it was a while ago when I made the decision to move out North. My husband and I still love the Knolls & the area around St. Phil’s and always drive through to see how things are doing.
Your comment regarding the improved performance of TJ points out a glaring deficiency with the District – a failure to spread the good news!!!! There are many schools within 150 that perform handsomely against those of the surrounding community, particularly considering the % of poverty is higher in the Peoria schools and yet . . . what is reported about the District is the gloom and doom. Granted, the recent actions of the BOE and Administration is making positive PR a bit difficult these days but District 150 still offers a fine education to those that wish to avail themselves of it – except the recently approved shortened primary school day is definitely a move in the wrong direction.