Almost all noteworthy business of the council was deferred tonight. The Coves controversy was sent to the Traffic Commission to be vetted. The Orchard District ornamental lighting issue was split into a policy issue and a specific request, both of which were deferred until a later, unspecified date. The museum square proposal was deferred until August 28. They did, however, extend the enterprise zone to include Prairie Farms on University, just north of Nebraska.
It was a night of many deferrals, yet it still lasted until after 9:30. Lord help us when they actually discuss the issues. Grab your pillow.
When things aren’t gonna go your way, defer. Have some time to wine and dine the naysayers towards your point of view. Hope the public loses interest and track of the next meeting. More do nothing from the do nothings.
I have to observe (without having done any scientific study of the minutes) that this Council defers more items than any in the previous 12 years. I think that with the less frequent meetings, it will only get worse (at least in the time it takes them to finally make a decision) rather than better.
I can support (and even applaud) them when they defer for the right reason — to get more information — to ensure neighborhoods have input, etc. But it seems more and more common for them to defer to either 1) find a way to save face or 2) bend a few arms to get approval. Not a shining example of the “new way of doing business” they claimed they would be bringing.
In many cases, issues are being deferred because staff didn’t supply them with the needed information until right before the start of meetings, or inserting issues into the agenda at the last possible minute, expecting the council to rubber stamp it. This council is rejecting this and putting off votes until they get the information, essentially calling staff’s bluff.
So this isn’t a sign of bad governance, it’s a sign of the opposite.
Oh so staff and not BVA was pushing forward the ornamental lighting in the Orchard District? NOPE, BVA is trying to CYA on this one. Got her hand caught in the cookie jar one too many times trying to buy off the residents in her district when others have followed the policy and paid their assessments.
Staff’s fault no decision was made on the issue regarding the gate in the new subdivision? NOPE – Council required the developer to install the road when no one wanted to do it initially. Staff recommended that it be done for fire safety/access and other reasons. Council said CORRECT. Now they want to support the future residents and are trying to find a way to gracefully grant it without any political fallout. Easiest thing would be to tear the road out…same impact but no terrible gate to remind everyone in the future of the poor decision making that occurred.
What a crock Dennis. Peo Proud has hit it on the nail. This is bad governance at it’s best. I am 98% sure had the lighting come up, it would have been shot down. End of lighting. The gate is a no brainer and should have been shot down right then and there. What is there to study? Public street not private so no gate.
The problem with the gate was that the proposal did not follow protical and needed to be kicked back to do so.
The change in policy regarding the use of special assessments and the use of block grant funds also needs to developed properly and the public should be involved. The issue was not the lighting in the Orchard District. In voting for either of these items as is, precident gets set for future decisions. There needs to be policies not just precidents. The museum is a cluster you know what. I would rather have it done correctly or not done at all, we’ll have to live with it for the next 100 years. There is much, I suspect to sort out with that one too.
If you watched the meeting last night you may have noticed that Barbara VanAwful couldn’t wait to get out of her seat and show her ugly teeth and nails as she schmoozed with Chief Settingsgard. She could really use a few lessons from Emily Post and a session with an image consultant.
Emily would say-
“Barbara dear, it isn’t polite to get up out of your seat when you have been elected to listen and respect your electorate.”
She didn’t listen to anything the articulate black man had to say. I hope the second district is paying attention to her lack of reverence. She thinks she is a gift to Peoria and we have Camille Gibson to thank for Madame Barbara. Certainly by now Camille knows Barbara is no better for the city than her predecessor.
Madame Van Awful is an embarrassment, but she is in a race with Spears. Bill still can’t put two complete sentences together to save his soul. You have to feel sorry for the poor fellow. Peoria, you are quickly becoming the laughing stock of the country not just Illinois.
Paul, there are already procedures in place for the using the funds BVA wanted to use. If anyone was setting a precedent, then approving the lighting using those funds the way she wanted too was it. The precedent for those funds has already been set. BVA wants to circumvent those rules and that would set a much more dangerous precedent as what would keep any neighborhood organization or councilperson for that matter from asking for anything they wanted? An example would be, if the lighting was approved without the usual 50/50 split, then guess who is going to pay for the second arbor?
No, this is nothing more than lousy politics from someone with a big ego. Gosh, I thought we voted this crap out a few years ago but I guess its back. I also agree with George on his assessment.
Oh and on the gate. Let me put it in straight English. Some people in a rich neighborhood do not want blacks cutting threw their neighborhood. So, they want to gate a public street. It makes no difference on whether the street should have been put there or not. It is there, it is a public street maintained by our tax dollars and therefore should not be gated for the convenience of the few. Last I checked, no matter what your skin color is, your money is still green. Tell me this isn’t about color and social class. The gate is a no brainer. NO GATE!
there are procedures in place. Em, I look to my own neighborhood as it is the one for which I am best equipped to speak. We would like to replace the sidewalks, curbs, lighting, add trees and add garbage cans to the 500-1200 blocks of W. McClure. It is in the enterprise zone, it is CBDG funding eligble. The majority of the street is either low income rental or low income owner occupied. It has been a high crime area (I have the stats and have walked the streets) and an area that with some moderate level of investment could be reclaimed successfully. Under the current policy I have three options for sidewalks, 1. special assessment (80-20) split 2. dangerous sidewalks program (although I have had two councilmen trip and one lose footing on them, can get them replaced under that) 3. schools program (although both students for Louckes and Columbia use these sidewalks, can’t get them replaced under this). Lighting options: 1. get people to simply turn on their porch lights. Although the easiest and cheapest solution, can’t get people to do it 2. pole lighting is minimal and only have one resident who is willing to pay for a pole light themselves. 3. special assessment at 50-50 regarless of lighting type.
Now, sections of this street are 80+% rental and the several of the landlords don’t so much as grow grass in the yard or have a screening process beyond “gimme your voucher”. I have people on limited income because of retirement, poverty, or disability. A change in the assessment process utilizing the special assessment funds and the balance of HUD$ would make sense. It is not a tool to use in all areas.
Without improvements in this area significant decline is likely. People are not going to invest in declining areas as homeowners, despite having plenty of decent affordable housing in a spot in town where you can springboard nearly everywhere in literally minutes. The association and the police department have been fighting crime tool and nail in this area. The quality of tenants is not going to improve in the rentals as long as they look like slums. If the Sheridan Triangle ever gets off the ground who is going to drive through here and want to leave their car to park and shop?
This is only one area. I could head south and make simliar arguements for Shelly St. where they put in sidewalks, but no curbs or additional lighting, or in Averyville or …or….
The Orchard District has high crime and mature trees, take a drive. There are people there still trying to fight to make it better. They need help to turn the area around.
Here is why we need a policy session vs. just a vote. There needs to be an application process to access this type of means for funding and an evaluation process to ensure it is not just someone’s political plumbs. The abuse factor is present esp. with re-elections and that factor needs to be removed. This cannot simply be a change for one neighborhood, but a means to utlize these funds in a planfull manner vs. just sprinkling some repairs here and there, but not really fixing anything.
The current procedures need revamping and they need to be much more user friendly. I also think that landlords who are not investing in their propertys who would benefit from these improvements, either be required to pay the special assessement fee or be required to invest an equal or substantial dollar amount back into their properties through paint/siding, roof, electrical, landscaping, plumbing etc. Perhaps they would be more motivated to at least read the name on the SEction 8 voucher before letting the next 2 truckloads of tenants move into their two bedroom home. Good landlords who take care of the property could have an incentive with some type of break on the assessment or a property tax freeze for a few years as a benefit for their upkeep.
Peoria AntiPundit — I disagree with you. Both the gate and the lighting issues were major policy shifts which would have opened Pandora’s box for the future had they been passed as listed on the agenda.
The decision to remand the gate issue to the traffic commission was the correct decision if the council was not going to simply say no to keyed gates across public right of ways.
I do agree with you that keyed gates across public right of ways should not happen.
Because the underlying policy of connecting the stubbed out portions of streets connecting adjacent developments was being followed, then that should have been the end of the issue.
From the research that I have done, the various pieces of information were being patched together and sometimes taken out of time line context to support the gate option.
In addition, putting this item on the consent agenda as a non-controversial item was a mistake for whatever reason(s).
The council again made the correct decision to separate the lighting issue in to a policy issue and an allocation issue. Now the policy issue can be discussed and for the first time in a very long time, the public will be able to provide input at this policy session. That is two huge steps in the correct direction of proper goverance.
There is to be a public policy city council meeting in September regarding the unallocated CDBG funding, I hope that you will participate. I feel that it we are going to change to participation percentages, then we need to also develop an application and submission procedure so that every CDBG eligible neighborhood has an equal opportunity to be considered for a distribution — not to change the policy and have the funds already promised to only one group.
Please consider this: The Orchard District Lighting is estimated to cost $230,000. There has been a three or more year wait from approval to installation of the project. Since that project has to be designed and then installed at whatever future date, what if the cost is greater that the estimate. Since this project was to have been funded at 100%, who would pay the overage? And that is only one challenge with the proposal as it was laid out. Hope to see you at the policy session! 🙂
Paul: I respect your point of view. In my area we have NO sidewalks and NO curbs on a lot of streets. Where are we on the city’s list? School children on their way to Trewyn walk in the road. Yes, each area has their problems including the Orchard. In two blocks of Ellis Street I could pack 20 homes in 2 blocks of some Southside streets so the density isn’t the same which is why I don’t understand the need for ornamental lighting. Improved street lights yes but decorator lights no. We all fight for our little corner and I would have liked to see the Griswold Street project proceed as our councilman asked for a few meetings back. BVA barked at it as did several others and Griswold south of Starr looks like a war zone. No improvements there in over 25 years and yet ornamental lighting is now needed in the Orchards which happens to be next to the Med Tech District which happens to be doing nothing after all the money spent there.
Karrie: The gate issue is a no brainer. You do not start gating public streets in neighborhoods no matter what overpaid high official in whatever division looks at it. If they allow this, then I want my street gated also simply because of the speeding traffic which our police have no time to enforce. And on and on it goes.