The Journal Star has published the specific wording of the telephone poll recently completed by Peoria County regarding the proposed downtown museum:
The Peoria Riverfront Museum will enhance educational opportunities for all of central Illinois. The museum will house collections, a state-of-the-art planetarium, and an IMAX theater. The adjacent Caterpillar Visitor’s Center will welcome visitors from around the world. The project will create 250 union construction jobs, and upon completion will generate nearly $14 million annually to our local economy. The museum project is 86 percent funded.
This is practically the textbook definition of a push poll, which is inappropriate in general, but especially when perpetrated by the County government.
What do they mean it will “generate nearly $14 million annually to our local economy”? How do they figure that? According to a September 8, 2008, Journal Star article, “The annual operating budget [for the Peoria Regional Museum] is pegged at $4 million.” Where’s the other $10 million being generated? To just throw that out there as a fact is inappropriate; at best it should have read that “developers predict” it will generate $14 million annually or some other such clarification.
And the last line is really over the top. It states that “The museum project is 86 percent funded.” This is patently false. According to the Build the Block website, $73.7 million has been raised to date out of $119.4 million. That’s 61.7%. The overall funding for the project is divided into “public funding” and “private funding.” The “private funding” portion is reportedly at 86% ($67 million out of their $78 million goal). But this poll is about the public funding portion. It’s misleading to represent the “the museum project” — which can only be interpreted as the entire museum project, given that there is no context that would indicate otherwise — as “86% funded.” Even if the private funding were at 100% of their goal, the overall project would still only be 71% funded.
The bigger problem is that the county is doing this polling (at public expense) for one purpose: to develop wording for the referendum question that will make it most likely to gain the favor of voters. That means they’re actively advocating for a “yes” vote on the museum tax referendum and using public funds to do it. As Billy Dennis points out in his blog, that’s illegal. 10 ILCS 5/9-25.1(b) states, in part, “No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated for political or campaign purposes to any candidate or political organization.”
Why is the County carrying the museum’s water?
” Give ME Obama’s (senate) seat and I’ll fund Your, riverfront, museum! “
” Get ME outta prison and I’ll fund the museum! Where the hell is Peoria, anyway? “
It seems the county board directed the staff to do this. Unless they just are acting independent.
Martin, do you really believe staff was “acting independent”? Do you believe in the Easter bunny? Do you believe these same people can conduct a fair election? How about the tooth fairy?
Why is the County carrying the museum’s water?
Perhaps it’s simply because members of the County Board and the County Administrator see a potential investment of $80 M sitting on the table ($90 M in committed funding minus the $10 M for the value of the site) and they don’t want to give up on that investment. Perhaps it’s because they know how hard Senator Koehler, Senator Risinger and Representative Leitch worked in Springfield to get this legislation passed and they feel some sense of responsibility to now utilize that legislation and allow the voters to vote on the question. I agree that the wording of the phone poll regarding the 86% funding was inaccurate and mis-leading. I was astonished that even with the very positive intro that 48% of the folks responded positively to the initial question. For your readers who are so confused that they still believe the city council is playing a role in this issue, they better find out who their representative is on the County Board quickly as the next County Board meeting is coming up soon in January.
Ileriet — Koehler, Risinger and Leitch worked to pass that legislation at the request of the county. That’s all part of the county working in tandem with the museum backers.
You say it’s a potential investment of $80 million sitting on the table. Fair enough. But does that in itself make the project worth the public funding it would take to make this project a reality? Would it pay for itself like the hotel project that recently passed in the city? Is it an essential public service? Is the design of the building efficient so that we get the most bang for our buck as taxpayers? Or are we paying out the nose for expensive and unnecessary design considerations? Does the building need the whole block to realize the benefits being touted by the developers? Or could a good portion of that block be put to better use, which would also lower the public costs of building it and bring in some property tax dollars to boot? Is there a compelling reason to move Lakeview museum to the riverfront at taxpayer expense?
What about the big question — will a higher sales tax make Peoria County (including the City of Peoria) less competitive with the rest of the tri-county area? Might we end up seeing a decline in tax revenues as shoppers and diners opt to patronize places nearby (i.e., across the river) where the taxes are lower?
I know what backers would say — hey, we’re just asking the public for their opinion — it’s democratic, you know! Yes, it’s democratic if the question is put to the voters fairly. But when the County starts scheming to achieve a “yes” vote, it ceases to be a fair question.
http://www.buildtheblock.com/r…..gress.html
It appears that the BLB information is outdated. Correct?
The cost for the Peoria Riverfront Museum is listed at $77.2M with $31.5M committed. On another page, the numbers are $77.2M private funding with $67M raised with a $11M shortfall, for the touted 86% funded.
Yet another page indicates that the public funding portion is at $23M or about 40 percent of the public funding target of $58M.
The BTB budget at the above link states that the public portion is $16.5M and the funds are “in place to date.”
How did we get from $16.5M in place to $23M to $58M?
What does the $119.4M figure include?
Is the public now paying for an IMAX theater?
What are the conditions for the IMAX portion and do these conditions for inclusion expire if the project gets stalled?
If it is illegal, why doesn’t one of you sue. Karrie? CJ?
So for the past couple of years… who has their hands on all this money that has been raised so far? ($80,000,000 @ 5% interest…. that’s $400,000 a year… I could get by on that)
I think it’s time to face facts on this issue:
This museum is going to be built one way or another. The question on the ballot will be worded that it’s going to be next to impossible for it not too pass. The IMAX is something I would love to see built, as far as the rest of it: It will probably end up like the PeoriaNext building, One Technology Plaza, (Insert name here) downtown ball park….
The players in this town want this built.
Sud: Sure thing. You pick the money off your money tree and send it to me and I will put my ‘John Hancock’ on the legal papers. My money tree is bare from the last go round with the Glen Oak School debacle. I see that you have received some more humor pills as a stocking stuffer. I’m listed in the telephone book lest you are confused as to where to send the funding for your entertaining idea.
CJ, you must have inside info that I’m not privy to. I suspect that the majority of the County Board members would have been much happier if Senator Koehler had not gotten SB1290 passed and therefore they could have avoided being put into this position of becoming the landlord for the museum. While many of them may go along with the proposal and allow the public referendum, I suspect many of them will do so reluctantly.
Question #1. But does that in itself make the project worth the public funding it would take to make this project a reality? Ileriet’s answer > Well, that’s an individual opinion, I’m sure I know your opinion, and you can probably guess at mine, and the proposed referendum would offer all registered voters an opportunity to make their opinion known on the issue.
Would it pay for itself like the hotel project that recently passed in the city? Ileriet’s answer > No, there’s no way the Museum, as a not for profit entity, could pay off the debt. Also, hopefully, the Museum people learned from the WTVP example, that taking on debt to expand and enhance your operation is probably not a financially sound decision.
Question #3 > Is it an essential public service? Ileriet’s answer > It’s probably no more an essential public service than the Heart of Peoria Commission was an essential public service.
Question #4 > Is the design of the building efficient so that we get the most bang for our buck as taxpayers? Ileriet’s answer > Again I suspect that any answer to this question would be just individual opinion. I suspect the architects who designed it would answer yes, their intent was to design an efficient building. I can’t imagine that the architects would say they’d deliberty designed an inefficient building. And I suspect the Museum proponents would say they demanded that the architects design an efficient building. Can’t imagine the Museum folks ever asking their architects to design an inefficent building for them, even for them that would be incredibly dumb.
Question #5 > Or are we paying out the nose for expensive and unnecessary design considerations? Ileriet’s answer >
Again, I suspect this is going to be a personal opinion. With all the funding issues that the Museum folks have experienced, I’d find it hard to imagine that they’ve allowed the architects to include anything in the design that is not absolutely necessary, but then you could get down to the arguement that all they need is a just a simple concrete block building. Then you’d certainly have some folks complaining that the building is not “architectually significant”, and there is that portion of the population that is concerned about that aspect of the project.
Question #6 > Does the building need the whole block to realize the benefits being touted by the developers? Ileriet’s answer > No, of course not. But the city council gave them the whole block, so I think this is really a question for the city. Knowing they had the whole site, and again this is a personal opinion, I think the planners did a reasonably good job of creating an attractive development for the site. However, the Museum, as planned, with only one floor at the Washington Street level, is certainly not an efficient use of the space.
Question #7 > Or could a good portion of that block be put to better use, which would also lower the public costs of building it and bring in some property tax dollars to boot? Ileriet’s answer >
Well, again, this is an issue that the City Council should have addressed four years ago when they entered into the initial redevelopment agreement with Lakeview and CAT in which they gave them the entire block. You can plan endless what if games here, but they’re senseless, we’re stuck with what the City Council decided four years ago.
Question #8 > Is there a compelling reason to move Lakeview museum to the riverfront at taxpayer expense? Ileriet’s answer > Not from my perspective, if that was the only thing involved in the Peoria Riverfront Musem, then it never would have gotten this far. I suspect that Caterpillar would never have supported this to the extent that they have if they felt that all that was involved was Lakeview relocating.
What about the big question (#9) — will a higher sales tax make Peoria County (including the City of Peoria) less competitive with the rest of the tri-county area? Ileriet’s answer > Of course it will, however, I believe the real question is how many people will change their shopping habits due to this higher sales tax? And again, this is a totally personal opinion. How many people do you feel who normally shop at the Walmart in North Peoria, are going to drive to the Walmart in East Peoria to avoid paying that extra quarter on every $100 of merchandise that they’ll be buying. Yes, a quarter, 25 cents on a $100 purchase is what we’re talking about here. That’s the question that members of the County Board will have to answer since they’re the elected officials and have to answer to their consituents.
Question #10 > Might we end up seeing a decline in tax revenues as shoppers and diners opt to patronize places nearby (i.e., across the river) where the taxes are lower? Ileriet’s answer > Yes, that’s certainly a possibility. I’d guess that some public tax policy experts somewhere probably have studied this question and would be able to provide an answer based on their analysis of similiar situations which have occured in other areas of the county, i.e. how much of a tax difference does it take to change consumers behavior, same question as to the price of gas. If you’ve got a big SUV with a 40 gallon tank, and assuming gas is $2.50 a gallon, then you’d pay $100 for a fill up if the tank was completely empty. Now if your favorite station raised their price a penny, to $2.51 a gallon, would you drive across the river if you knew stations over there still had gas at $2.50 a gallon, cause that extra penny per gallon would cost you 40 cents more for a fill up, which is much greater than the 25 cents you’d be paying for the museum tax. I’m sure some folks would, the question is just how many. TTFN – have a happy holiday.
Ileriet,
Nice post.
I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but you seem to believe that a great deal of what goes on with the museum [funding, location, design, etc], is based on “personal” or “individual opinion.”
That may be the case. If it is however, that is one more reason why this museum project has been a failure from the beginning. A mutli-million dollar [museum] project is not something that should be based on personal opinion, especially if the ‘opinions’ come from people who are not sufficiently knowledgeable in museum studies.
Museum architects design buidlings according to the specifications given them by the people running the project. Remember, there was a ‘design-off’ held by the Museum Group some years ago.
Most of the complaints listed on C.J.’s site are well founded…, yet most of our questions are never answered…why? If this project is being controlled by people for personal reasons…even more reason to vote no to ANY type of tax increase.
P.S. Of course any non-for-profit is not out to make money or ‘turn-a-buck.’ The real question is what can/will the museum do for the rest of economy?
The numbers being thrown out there by the Museum Group [operation costs, number of PAYING visitors per year, etc] seem more than a little far-fetched…unless those are personal opinions as well…..?
NV: Pride, ego, vanity — surely you jest?
Jest?
Me?
Never.
NV: Ha ha ha! Now, you just might get a lump of coal in your stocking! — lol
Ileriet — No inside information; just reading the newspaper accounts of the County Board meetings. According to a Journal Star article in Dec. 2007, “[County Administrator Patrick] Urich recommends a county sales tax for public facilities, saying it would spread the tax burden out to a larger base. But the county would first have to ask the General Assembly for authority to go to the voters for such a tax, then the county must convince voters to approve it.”
Clever line, but (a) city planning is, in fact, an essential service, and (b) HOPC didn’t cost $24 million in taxpayer money.
You also say that the museum folks wouldn’t include anything that wasn’t absolutely necessary, so that costs would be kept down. The $3 million parking deck is unnecessary (and Cat’s own commissioned independent study proved it) and adds quite a bit of expense. Why should the taxpayers pay for yet another parking deck, especially one that’s not needed? Taking up the whole block and precluding mixed use development is not necessary. You want to lay that at the feet of the city; I concur that the city shouldn’t have agreed to the request, but the request came from the museum folks — the original plan was not to give the whole block to the museum. So, we can argue about who gets the blame, but the fact that the museum folks fought for the whole block belies your belief that they would never ask for anything inefficient or unnecessary. They would, and they have.
Oh, and an urban building can be architecturally-significant without taking up a whole block. And I would argue that the proposed building is not architecturally significant. The original design with the sphere inside the glass case — while I still disapproved of the suburban siting of it — could have made a case for being architecturally significant. Once they replaced that with a silo, it became meaningless. It was at that point that the whole building should have been redesigned, not just made a caricature of the original design.
Regarding the relocation of Lakeview: I realize that this project is not solely a relocation of Lakeview Museum. But it is a component of the project. And if this sales tax referendum passes, then the taxpayers will be subsidizing that move. My question is, why should the taxpayers be subsidizing Lakeview’s move to the riverfront? If there’s not enough money, they could just take Lakeview’s component (art & science) out of the project; Lakeview already has a building and is currently self-sufficient, for the most part (i.e., they get government grants, but not sales or property tax revenue). They could stay right where they are instead of moving to the riverfront. That right there would undoubtedly save $24 million. No planetarium would have to be built, and the square-footage could be reduced. What would be left would be the new components — history and achievement. Previous studies have shown that we need about 30,000 square feet for a good-quality history museum. Add some square footage for the various Halls of Fame and an IMAX theater and put it all on a portion of the block in an urban-scale building, and I think you’ve got a project that’s within budget and doesn’t need additional sales tax dollars to support it.
As for sales tax and competitiveness: I hate to break this to you, but Peoria sales tax is already significantly higher than East Peoria’s. So that 25 cents per $100 purchase — that would be in addition to the current disparity. The bigger the disparity gets, the more people will try to avoid it. This is especially true when it comes to restaurant tax. People can and do eat across the river to avoid Peoria’s higher sales tax.
If you’re looking for empirical studies, I would suggest these:
Luna, LeAnn, “Local sales tax competition and the effect on county governments’ tax rates and tax bases”, Journal of the American Taxation Association (22 March 2004).
Wooster, Rossitza B. and Lehner, Joshua W., Reexamining the Border Tax Effect: A Case Study of Washington State (September 2008).
Both of these articles also mention how sales taxes are regressive, hitting the poor and middle-class the hardest. Thought that was worth noting, especially in light of recent layoffs in the area.
Have you seen how New Voice lives? A lump of coal would be welcome.
There it is.
YOu can take the proposed museum tax survey online if you did not get to take it by telephone.
http://www.peoriacounty.org/
Please read about the proposed tax referendum and then take the survey.
I love the way the survey is written… a very well spun survey.
“Would you be more likely to support a sales tax increase if proceeds from the tax COULD ALSO BE USED FOR other public facility NEEDS such as schools and fire houses?”
Wow. Like that would ever happen…
Or if the tax had a limit on it and would expire at some time in the future…. LIKE THAT would ever happen… When is the last time any one heard of a sales tax reduction???
kcdad: That is why,no,no and no are all great choices! 🙂
Took the poll.
$14 million dollars growth annually?
No one has EVER, EVER been able to explain that number! This is outrageous. A lie, pure and simple.
New Voice — I did find an explanation for it when writing a reply on another blog. If I may quote myself:
Here’s some more of that 9/1/06 PJS article that I didn’t quote because I didn’t want my comment to be too long:
So… almost 94% of visitors that live within 2-3 hours of the Peoria area will spend the night at a local hotel instead of simply driving home? If I were Brent Lonteen I wouldn’t bet my braces on it.
CJ, any “independent” market study would probably have said the same thing. Consulting companies don’t bring in the business by telling their clients how things really are, at least not consulting companies that operate in the public sector.
C.J.
Thanks for posting info. I do remember these figures from many of your last posts. They are to say the least….remarkable[?]
11Bravo,
Good point. I do miss the heady days of White Oak and their [expensive] guiding hand…………
11Bravo said, “So… almost 94% of visitors that live within 2-3 hours of the Peoria area will spend the night at a local hotel instead of simply driving home?”
Good rhetorical question. I don’t think so, especially considering that the museum will be closing at 5:00. What exactly are they going to do after 5 other than drive home?
CJ, I know you like to attempt to stress that the Museum will be closing at 5pm as that statement can be used to reinforce you viewpoint that the development will do nothing to energize the downtown / riverfront environment in the evenings. But why can’t you accept and recognize that the IMAX will be the biggest draw of the development and it will be open in the evenings, probably drawing more people to it’s evening shows that the Museum will draw to it’s galleries during the day. I suppose you can argure about how many people will drive downtown to see a movie at the IMAX in the evenings, that’s certainly debatable, but unless I’ve been mislead, my understanding from the Museum folks, and I believe this has been reported by the JS is that the IMAX will be open in th evenings showing “entertainment” films.
Ileriet — The IMAX would be a wonderful draw for downtown. I’ve even said so on my blog. It would definitely be local/regional draw, although I doubt many people are going to stay the night to come see it.
I don’t know how long you’ve been reading my blog, but I get the impression that you think I have nothing but contempt for this project. I do, in fact, have some very specific criticisms that I hammer on all the time, but that’s only part of the story.
First of all, I think Peoria needs a history museum. Peoria has an interesting and colorful history, and a museum to showcase it is long overdue. When the idea of a history museum first started being talked about many years ago (before I started blogging), I was excited about it! I wasn’t even necessarily put off by it being combined with Lakeview museum when that idea was first launched. Furthermore, I have no problem with Cat building a visitor’s center — that would be a wonderful amenity in the city of Cat’s world headquarters.
My criticism has to do with three (it used to be two) things:
1. The form of the development. The plans call for a suburban, single-use development right on the so-called “crown jewel” of our central business district. This is a big mistake. There’s a reason why consultant after consultant has recommended mixed use for that block, with a residential and retail component. The reason is that, to revitalize downtown, you need to have people living there. We’ve done lots of single-use projects downtown (Civic Center, ballpark, Riverplex, Riverfront Village) and yet downtown is still “dead” to quote at-large councilman Eric Turner. Why is that? Because people swoop in from outside of downtown for an event, then head back home after the event is over, leaving the downtown empty whenever there’s not an event happening. The only way the streets are going to be activated 24/7 — the only way downtown is not going to be “dead” — is if you have people living down there 24/7. That will drive further development because a market will be built-in. Instead, the developers are ignoring the consultants and trying to build the same kind of development we’ve built time after time that hasn’t succeeded in revitalizing downtown. Why insist on repeating the same mistakes of the past? The form of the building itself is an issue as well, being setback from the street with no windows, which will make that bock a scary place to walk at night, and taking up so little space on the block so that 2/3 of the block is unused open space — a huge waste of resources.
2. The size of the museum. The size of the museum has shrunk from 110,000 square feet to just over 80,000 square feet. This is not enough space to adequately house all the things they want to do in the museum (art, science, history, achievement) and properly store artifacts that are not currently on display. Furthermore, a one-story, 80,000-square-foot building on that huge plot of land is ridiculous (see #1 above).
3. The tax for the project. The project is bad enough if it were merely a private venture. But the fact that they want to finance it with a regressive sales tax is unconscionable. There are lots of ways to reduce costs so that this tax would be unnecessary. They could start with redesigning the project so that it doesn’t take up the whole block and is in a more efficient building. They could remove the Lakeview museum component since they already have a building and there is no compelling reason to use tax dollars to move that museum to the riverfront. We could build a smaller building that could house just the history and achievement portions. Ultimately, they could give up the Sears block completely and decide to use a historic building elsewhere downtown, like in the warehouse district. This would be most efficient of all, since they would be reusing an existing building. Galesburg has done this with their museums and it’s very effective.
Lastly, I just want to say that I have nothing against any of the people involved. I have no reason to believe that they are anything less than respectable people who sincerely believe they are doing the right thing and have the best interests of Peoria at heart. But I think there is good objective evidence to conclude that they’re sincerely wrong, nevertheless.
“…but unless I’ve been mislead…”
Ileriet –
The city/county of Peoria has been mislead since the beginning of this project. I believe CJ has made this clear.
Lets just say that my opinion of “the people involved” with this project differs…’slightly’ from CJ’s. I am not yet screaming conspiracy, but one wonders WHY the so-called museum group is going to such lengths to push this project. The Museum Group [as far as I know] has done nothing to address the lack of support they are receiving from the public. All they seem to do is find new ways to cram old ideas down the throats of the ‘taxpayers’.
I have asked this before, of the people who post here – and museum representatives – why has the museum NEVER received the full support of the public? WHY?!?!?
The IMAX sounds great…the thing could run 24/7, but does that justify a $100 million+ price tag? Does ANYTHING justify that kind of expenditure?