Although the Journal Star says, “Group rises to oppose museum,” the group — Citizens for Responsible Spending — actually rises simply to oppose a proposed county sales tax for public facilities. The .25% tax increase would double the county’s tax rate and would be used to fill a funding gap for a museum that hasn’t even raised all its private capital yet.
That’s right. Even if the public referendum passes and successfully closes the gap in the public funding portion of the museum’s financing plan, the museum group will still be $11 million short in private funding, according to their own website. That’s after six or seven years of fundraising, including high-profile efforts by current and former mayors to get more donors.
Has anyone in the museum group ever entertained the notion that maybe — just maybe — the problem isn’t a fundraising problem? That maybe the problem is that their museum plan is too expensive, too inefficient, and unsustainable?
Thumbs to this group who is taking the intiavive to unveil this fraud. Urge EVERY voter you know in Peoria County to “VOTE NO!”
how much time and money is this opposition group willing to spend on their cause to save .25 on a $100 purchase?
I have been telling all of my friends to vote “yes”
I guess we will see who has more friends : )
You NEED this museum, you are going to pay for it, and you are going to get it, whether you want it or not; the arrogant elitists who run this town are going to shove it down your throat, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! Or, maybe NOT?
If the Civic Center is any indication this tax will be sold as temporary and then after passing be made permanent. HOW? Lakeville will lobby the state legislature to make it permanent.
I will choose to take no chances and will vote “NO!”
You have all swayed me–my momentary bent toward voting “yes” has passed.
Peoriafan,
Don’t you think being this stubborn is more than a little childish?
Four NO VOTES have been posted on this blog already. Between the four of us, I’ll bet we have more friends than you, and trust me…they WILL be voting NO as well!
Oh yeah!!!!!
As ‘One More’ points out, it is .25 now. What will it be in a couple of years when museum attendence begins to drop way off?
peoriafan: How much money has the Build the Block clan spent trying to convince us this is a money maker? Name one tax that was temporary. Just name one and I’ll vote YES. HRA tax was a temp tax, no it continues on and on as with e “forgotten” Garbage Fee which is a real slap in the face of all Peroians because it doesn’t even go toward garbage collection and in fact if you ask a councilperson where it goes, you’ll most likely get 11 different answers.
The fix is in but I’m still betting that taxpayers are smarter than any Build the Block politico thinks they are and it will be voted soundly down. No mater, the county board will then decide they know what is good for us and vote the tax in anyway only it will be called a fee or something to circumvent the referendum.
Peoria Fan asks, “how much time and money is this opposition group willing to spend on their cause to save .25 on a $100 purchase?”
This misrepresents the argument, Peoria Fan. It’s not about saving any one person a quarter. It’s about saving the county $40 million on a losing proposition. It’s about using public funds responsibly. It’s about considering the ramifications of further tax rate disparity between Peoria and surrounding communities. It’s about recognizing the difference between wants and needs, between discretionary and necessary expenditures. It’s about acknowledging that we’re in a recession, and that we can’t tax ourselves into prosperity.
If you like the museum plan, then by all means, contribute your own money toward it. But don’t expect the county to sink $40 million into it when you don’t even have enough private capital raised to build the thing.
Hey Peoriafan, how about giving me .25 on every hundred dollars spent in the county? I promise I will improve the local economy, too.
Oh, and give my wife .25 too. And New Voice, too, although he’ll just waste it on his kids or something stupid like that.
If this museum is going to be such a hit why do they us taxpayers to fund it?
Anyone remember all the grand talk from the museum supporters about a development called Mid-Town?
I am taxed 20% out of my check right now. This 20% does not even count the sales or property tax portion of the bill
I still can’t support one more development that’ll shut its doors at 5pm and contribute to downtown’s ghosttown image at night. While a museum itself isn’t a bad idea, the city has an opportunity to tie the riverfront nightlife (using that term extremely loosely) to the rest of downtown and the Civic Center using this block. I don’t see it happening with a museum complex that would probably close no later than 6pm daily and may not be open on weekends at all.
Block the build!
It will have an IMAX theater showing first run movies open 7 days a week, day and evening. Lakeview and the CAT visitors center will be open 7 days a week with evening hours.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/05/6928.ars
The link to a tax that was temporary. I hope Em will stand tall and vote
Karrie Alms, spokeswoman for Citizens for Responsible Spending will be interviewed live in just a few minutes on Markley and Luciano. You can listen on-line here:
http://1470wmbd.com/pages/383936.php
I wish it was “shovel ready”, then we could get some of the stimulus money to help pay for it. I wonder how much the Imax will charge or is that going to be included in the admission price?
LOL, that tax was from the Spanish-American war and yes it was repealed at last. Took over 100 years. Nope, that is not good enough. I’ll still vote NO. On the other hand, if you can get someone on the city council to stand up and say the Garbage Fee is a joke and we will repeal that tax ASAP, and then do it, I’ll stand shovel ready to vote YES.
Actually it has been repealed a number of times over the last 100 years. The legislature keeps bringing it back to fill a need.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_telephone_excise_tax
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17051/Tax_Group_Targets_SpanishAmerican_War_Tax.html
Something all of you have missed. The referendum is for a public facility tax. If the private funding does not come in then the tax will go to public facilities that do not include the museum. The tax will go on whether there is a museum or not. Read the fine print in the referendum. It says public facility, not museum. Although it has been promised that the bonds sold will be for the museum, if the private money is not there, there will be no museum, but there will be a 20 year tax with no corresponding income from tourist. This just gets messier and messier.
EM you are more the goal posts
“More” should be moving
“Actually it has been repealed a number of times over the last 100 years. The legislature keeps bringing it back to fill a need.”
– I believe that is the point EM is trying to make.
The ‘double-talk’ wording of the referendum has been criticized before. If we all vote NO, a number of old people will become homeless, half of Peoria will burn down, a tsunami will hit, the Cubs will win the World Series………………
Boy, I bet it’s draining being so negative. Take a ride across the bridge and check out what East Peoria has done and is continuing to plan for. Peoria is where it is, because, unfortunately there are too many negative people pointing fingers and not offering to be part of the solution.
Hopefully, you all are a small group. I vote for and this project.
My thoughts:
http://peoriarocks.blogspot.com/2009/02/rise-of-common-man.html
joesmith2253 — Peoria has a plan for this block called the Heart of Peoria Plan. I’m all for that plan. Why are those designing this block so negative toward the Heart of Peoria Plan? Take a ride across the bridge and check out what East Peoria is planning — a project that is “incorporating many of the fundamentals of New Urbanism.” Meanwhile, here in Peoria, we have a plan that incorporates the fundamentals of New Urbanism, but we ignore it.
C.J. , the East Peoria project site plan looks as if they are building a giant strip shopping center. I hope that is not what you call New Urbanism.
I will add that based on the square footage of the buildings it seems clearly geared for large box retailers as opposed to local shops. It does not look pedestrian friendly to me with all the shops looking out onto acres of parking lots.
How is this any different from the museum group trying to claim the label of New Urbanism?
Michael — I agree with you. “Joe” was criticizing me for being “negative” and supposedly not being part of the solution. I was simply trying to point out that I’m actually positive — positive about the Plan that Peoria put together with the help of hundreds of citizens called the Heart of Peoria Plan. I even served on the Heart of Peoria Commission and continue to advocate for the plan. I was mocking his rhetoric about looking to East Peoria for inspiration by pointing out that they’re trying to mirror Peoria with a “new urban” vision for downtown. Yes, their plan is fake new urbanism, whereas our plan is the real thing… yet we ignore our plan and call anyone who advocates for it “negative.”
I would say there is a bit too much open air parking to call the East Peoria thing New Urbanist. Consider the developer involved. Cullinan called Grand Prairie New Urbanist too… but it is far from it. Even Duany panned it.
Oh… and East Peoria is looking at a Museum of its own or perhaps as a fall back location for Lakeview in the event that Peoria’s fails develop. They also are interested in a train station.
You can almost see this writing itself. Put a bad idea out to Peoria. Peoria’s public rejects the idea. Idea fails. Move idea to a location of less resistance (East Peoria). Blame Peoria’s public for the failure and the loss of jobs, money, prestige, etc… Try for another bad idea hoping you weakened the resolve of the public.
Joesmith,
Negative? We disagree with the current museum plan, as proposed by the PRM…and we are negative?
Since the beginning [years ago], a number of people asked questions and/or developed alternative proposals to the current plan. What happened?
Nothing.
Negative is a bunch of people [bitching] for no good reason; lacking goals and methods. I would say that most of the people who oppose this current museum plan have viable goals……..?
If it had to come to this – “Citizens for Responsible Spending” – there must have been a problem.
CRS? How about Citizens for Reinstating the use of Stocks in the public square? Why do we have to ask for responsible spending? Why is that not something we should DEMAND? And when our elected officials recklessly spend and line their and their friends’ pockets we should publicly flay them and put them in stocks in the courthouse square with signs reading: I STOLE YOUR MONEY!
“Flay” is good.
All I can say is be careful who you listen too. Name one thing some of the people who are on this committee has done to enhance and grow the community except complain about everything in the city. Why haven’t they responded by helping raise money if they are worried about the money being spent. Be positive and help make Peoria the place to come to.
Padman,
You make about as much sense as joesmith.
I have a feeling YOU are in for it now…………
A museum in the middle of an crappy downtown surrounded by ghetto. Stay positive and lets get this done for it will finally make peoria great.
Lets just forget that peoria only has so much money and there are about a million other things that would do more to improve our city.
This city should be spending their money to make the city a great place to live. Instead they spend their money to make peoria a place to visit every now and then. Every big project this city has done in the last 20 years has been for those who may come for an afternoon. All those people choose to live elsewhere as do I. Peoria is, and at this rate will always be, a crappy place to live. At least I can drive in for a show.
That is not being negative!!!
Padman:
Thank you for your comments. Since you are broadbrushing Citizens for Responsible Spending and not specifically identifying an individual, I will share my experiences as a taxpayer who asks and expects questions from elected officials and administrators who are spending our money.
As for myself, I have advocated to change the public input process for fifteen years — it is backwards. There needs to be broad and inclusive public input from the inception of a project, not at the end when project developers (public and private) are asking for public monies, especially when all their state and federal funding wells run dry.
Past practices — in Peoria — Public input is accepted after the project is developed mostly out of public view. Then the “insert name” project is rolled out for public inspection to be voted in a short time frame.
eg: Friday debut – Tuesday vote.
Another variation – promise certain requirements by governmental adminstrator in Springfield at a public hearing which have never been discussed in an open meeting by elected board members in Peoria. Get project approved in Springfield because a not-profit has to get the State’s approval to participate. Then come back to the elected officials to approve and sign document for requirements agreed upon in Springfield. (Riverplex)
Another variation – Gateway Building was to be built in the floodplain. Councilman Grayeb acknowledged at a city council meeting that the research which I brought forward was accurate that the building needed to be raised to be at the proper building level so that people’s floodplain insurance would not be at risk nor the city’s. Council voted and approved the proper requirements to be in compliance. Why should citizens need to be checking on the professional’s work?
I have a long and varied project pedigree.
You may ask any number of elected officials and/or administrators about my ‘credentials’ over the years. There have been newspaper articles in the paper about having done my research and that I ‘do not shoot from the hip.’ What I say at any public meeting is backed by the document, period. If I mention that I have been told information that cannot be verified, I will state that. I have my sources and documents all in a row because that is how trust is earned. And it is legal insurance should someone want to question my statements.
As for the Build the Block project, I would not raise money for a project that has an exclusive process and is not properly planned. I would raise money for a better block plan. However, in our journey with forming Citizens for Responsible Spending, we have found that there are many people who do not want the museum to be moved from the current location. Who am I or CFRS as a group to tell all the citizens of Peoria or even the county that the museum should be moved to the Sears block? That would be the same backwards process.
Some people just do not want their taxes raised for any reason and many other reasons.
The only way to get a better plan is to start over as harsh as that may sound. It is up to the voters of Peoria County to decide. We advocate a NO vote. We are presenting information in an open forum at our website so that people who want to become informed can do so without reading ‘dusty and boring’ documents which are like treasure maps for us. The things men believe in are the things they do. Public process and proper planning for a healthy vibrant Peoria are two of the many values I cherish and advocate in my life.
Thanks for the dialogue.
PADMAN: Since WHEN did grow mean improve? And who is being enhanced by this project?
The warehouse district will be enhanced by this project, as well as, the other businesses waiting for something to happen that would bring people down there, instead of across the river. The downtown area along the river is dead right now.
Because people going to the museum like to hang out in warehouses?
The CRS ( in my view) are advocating a process that will be flawless and have no room for comprimise.
A flawless system or procedure that is administered by flawed people will have failure.
It is more properly characterized as the ” The perfect being the enemy of the good”
After the flawless process is created (however long that takes) by flawed individuals, who will be able to follow or comply with the process. It will more than likely be priced out of the range of most local organizations. Entrepenurial groups and firms will not risk scarce capital on a low return project.
If there is an element of comprimise or latitude in developing a project it will require some type of give and take. Those who are rigid in their stance (to have a flawless process) will find a lot of empty spaces that are left vacant.
“Those who are rigid in their stance…”
Are we talking about the PRM group?
The CRS.
Precinct Committeeman:
CRS? kcdad’s idea.
If you are referring to CRFS (Citizens for Responsible Spending) than this is the comment I would offer.
CRFS is not advocating for a flawless process. Advocation is for an inclusive process to invite any and all stakeholders to participate in the process from the beginning. Will all stakeholders participate? Who knows. That is not the point. The point is that any and all stakeholders were invited. That means that we need to look at best practices so that a variety of invitation methods are employed.
An inclusive process is accomplished by having more than one meeting and/or a series of meetings at various times to encourage participation. Not the usual fare of 8 am or 2pm (insert time) when the majority of taxpayers are working (if they still have a job in today’s economy) and state an inclusive process has occurred.
An inclusive process takes time. An inclusive process allows for respectful compromise not take hostage compromise which is what occurs in an exclusive process.
The proposed inclusive process will most likely be uncomfortable for many people, especially for those persons who are used to being in control of the information, power and purse strings. Inclusive public process requires a tremendous shift in mindset. This process shift would be opposite of the way that planning and projects have been formed and advanced for the past fifteen years I have lived in Peoria. I am told that an exclusive process has been the soup du jour for decades.
An inclusive process brings a diversity of people together to discuss ideas across social, economic, racial, geographic and (fill in the blank) lines who might not have the opportunity to share ideas. An inclusive process is how we can best solve the challenges before us in our area. An inclusive process helps us to best utilize our best community resource — people who bring their many talents and energy to making our community healthy, vibrant and successful.
As for increased costs for a project. Let’s use the museum project as an example. It has been over five years since this project started. The project cost has increased while the project size has decreased. No other options are possible as long as the Sears block is under contract via a Redevelopment Agreement which has now been extended and amended three times because project goals and deadlines has not been met.
In November 2007, the museum group was looking for $24M in public funding. January 2009, the public funding being requested is now $35M and possibly $40M so an extra $5M in private donations can be allocated for the endowment per public meetings and documents. 24 + 11 + 5 = 40. Potentially a $16M increase in public funding in 14 months.
I hope that helps you to better understand CFRS’s position. If not, please ask additional questions . Thank you for the dialogue.
Karrie:
At what level of stakeholders participation will you accept as inclusive?
If everyone is invited ( please define everyone) and only two stake holders show up and those that do are heard, then the process continues and the result is not to your (CFRS) satisfaction, will you then say the process is viable and any result after the fact is for the public to work their will.
At what level is diversity achieved? who decides?
Every person who can walk through a door or be wheeled into a meeting has an opportunity to contribute. If they choose not to participate it is their choice.
Who chooses the invitation methods and sectors of individuals to be solicited? Who will track the response rate of the invitations? At what point is the invitation process deemed adequate?
How many meetings will satisfy the participation requirements? ( 2,6,10) How do you define begining? From the developers first thought, from the first news article posted in a paper or blog site?
What is a hostage compromise?
Who chooses the venue for the gatherings of concerned citizen? Who pays for the meeting place costs? If the project is solely located in a municipal boundary will the surrounding area have a voice in the process such as county voters to support a county wide sales tax increase for facilities?
Who determines best utilization of resources?
My view is that the CFRS needs to be concerned with the County Board members in the next election. Will the CFRS work their fingers to the bone in opposing the incumbents who voted for the ballot issue and support challengers who are against the ballot issue?
Will the CFRS become a force to reckoned with in the local and county issues arena?
PRM “fiddles” while Peoria’s history burns.
We must not forget the so-called PRM collaborators. Supposedly there are [where] a number of other ‘cultural institutions’ involved with developing the museum project. Considering the board members for each of the collaborating institutions are the same, one wonders what kind of input the museum project received from the African-American Museum, Peoria Historical Society, etc. Anything outside the scope of the current PRM tirade?
Discussing the financial aspects of this project is well and good, but what about the true purpose of the museum? The preservation of Peoria’s past has suffered considerably in the past, and will continue to do so…despite the [possible] construction of a multi-million dollar museum.
Precinct Committeeman:
Your questions are excellent. These are all questions which need to be addressed, discussed and decided as a community. People have definite opinions and would like to participate without being labeled ‘the vocal minority’ and then thrown under the bus.
What is the vision for Peoria? How was that vision developed? Again, who was included? Did elected officials then stay the course to implement the voice of the people? eg: HOP Plan. Charettes to include participants who wanted to attend. Elected officials did not stay the course — think museum on the block and other recent examples.
Peoria still does not have a vision. Lots of $ for studies and relatively little staying of or on course.
CFRS formed for the current issue — to advocate that Peoria County taxpayers vote NO the 1/4% sales tax referendum on April 7th.
When you look at CFRS’ website,
http://www.nomuseumtax.org,
you can learn why CFRS is opposed to THIS museum plan and THIS funding mechanism. CFRS has provided explanations and documentations to educate Peoria County taxpayers about the issue. CFRS is not against museums per se.
If taxpayers have questions, please send questions to nomuseumtax@yahoo.com and CFRS will research questions and present new posts as time permits.
You wrote: What is a hostage compromise?
A project is developed using an exclusive process. Then the project is presented as yet another silver bullet fix all our problems with rosey projections for public support or buy-in, open up your wallet$ to pay the bill$. The natives do not like the project because it was developed exclusively AND the project is flawed with design, cost, projections et al. The natives mount a resistance. The project promoters attempt to marginalize the natives and throw the natives under the bus. The natives remain resiliant. The natives persist and the project is stopped. The natives are threatened and/or punished for their successful resistance. Natives will not get a school because they were so ungrateful. Finally a school is advanced but maximum revitalizion is not achieved because the decisions makers still do not include the natives regarding the natives’ vision for the neighborhood dealing with urban designs issues et al. eg: Glen Oak School Siting Issue
Marty or Mitch: How did I do with my summation?
After April 7, CFRS can decide future plans.
At the end of the day it is about being an educated voter and then casting your vote. CFRS advocates for a NO vote on April 7. Thank you for the dialogue.
Karrie: I am not sure who was “thrown under the bus” in your reply.
How does the Glen Oak School issue affect the ballot issue at hand? District 150 is not asking for the 1/4% sales tax increase.
You (CFRS) seem to be at odds with the elected bodies that have been working this project. The HOP Plan was attended by local members of the community and I believe some participation by elected officials ( correct me if I am in error) I even believe this blog was very informative of the process and the results of the charette.
How many attended the Charette? Was the number adequate to the diversity and community inputs you have stated in previous replies? If not why?
What “natives were being threatened’ are you referring? Did some official who had control over the school siting process state that as a condition of the project (PRM) that a new school would be terminated from further planning and construction? Who was that official?
How much revitalization would it take to be at the maximum level? At what level of revitalization are the school projects being constructed?
Who determines the maximum revitalization?
I hope CFRS will revisit all the tax increases that come through the County Board and apply the same robust opposition you have mustered for this particular issue.
Precinct Com Man,
You are going on and on here.
….and this is all because YOU support the museum?
PC– What exactly is your point, if you have one? A short, declarative sentence would be appreciated. 🙂
Good grief. There are quite a few, of late, who need to start their own blogs. Or maybe blog owners should put word limits on comments. If someone has THAT much to say, they need their own spot to blog.