It seems the school district hasn’t been keeping at least one of its latest property acquisitions up to code, and they’re proposing the most expensive solution to that problem, of course.
District 150 paid $98,000 — about $38,000 more than its fair market value — for the house at 2126 N. Prospect Rd. in April 2006 — part of a thwarted attempt to put a new grade school for the Woodruff attendance area in Glen Oak Park. That house is not up to code because of a bad roof and peeling paint. Rather than paint the garage and put a new $4,000 roof on the house, naturally they’re talking about demolishing it, according to a report at PJStar.com:
District 150 is considering tearing down a house on Prospect Road because of pending code violations, district officials confirmed Wednesday.
Demolishing the house will easily cost twice as much as fixing it, to say nothing of the equity they will lose. And when I say “they,” I of course mean “we,” the taxpayers. You gotta hand it to the school board — they really have a knack when it comes to dreaming up ways to waste our money.
It’s almost like they had a brainstorming session where they asked, “What would be the most irresponsible, ridiculous, and provocative thing we could do with the properties we acquired prematurely and cannot now use?” And after much discussion, the answer was clearly, “leave them in a state of disrepair until the city tries to fine us for code violations, then throw good money after bad by demolishing them.”
Bravo. For your next act, how about taking a bunch of taxpayer money and simply setting it on fire in the parking lot?
UPDATE: Clare Jellick’s full article appears in today’s Journal Star. It includes this information from the previous owner of the home:
Former homeowner Wilbur Rose said the roof was starting to go when he owned it, but it has deteriorated rapidly since then. He drives by it sometimes and says it’s now an eyesore.
“There was one spot going when I left and now it looks like there’s three huge spots where the wind and stuff has blown it away. It has gotten 300 percent worse than when I was there,” Rose said.
Why hasn’t the district put all of its Prospect road property back on the market yet?
By demolishing the house they make it less likely to reverse their planned intentions.
As Will Rogers said, “It’s a good thing we don’t get all the government we pay for.”
Opponets of the Park site-don’t go to sleep, rest assured 150 movers and shakers are at work on a way to get the Park Board on their side. They have a lot of money to do this, and they will make an offer to the Park Board they cannot refuse. And they wont be giving you much notice.
CJ: Possible courses of action for correction to this property are reported to be discussed at the D150 Building Committee Meeting on 2 March 2006, 3 pm at Valeska Hinton.
Will this item be placed on the D150 Agenda for 6 March 2007 — to be included under Goal 2 – Fiscal Responsibility?
CJ: DO you have an aerial photograph that also highlights the PPD land that was proposed to be added? (This would be to give a visual context to RomanII’s comment posted above.)
Karrie: the land that the PPD was going to let the school district share was the two parking lots you can see in the satellite photo above — the long, skinny parking lot east of the bulk of the houses, north of Republic, and the lot just to the south of the amphitheater/lagoon.
I smell something fishy, and it ain’t the Illinois river.
An empty lot is blight.
That may not be all, folks. It has been rumored that not only has the District failed to maintain the exteriors of the properties, but they supposedly had the insides gutted – plumbing, electrical fixtures, trim, appliances, etc. etc. Since the properties have not been listed for sale, this rumor may be credibile. Either that, or they are planning to make an end run and get the Glen Oak Park site back on the table.
If they had the interiors gutted, who did the work? Unless it was the Bldgs and Grounds department, they would have been required by school code to go through the public bidding process to employ a salvage contractor. Does anyone recall this coming before the BOE and voted on in open session?
Should we be surprised by this turn of events? Unfortunately no. This administration has repeatedly demonstrated (at least in this writer’s opinions) their inability to make good decisions. And do we even need to discuss – again – their lack of fiscal responsibility?
If our city schools have any hope of surviving – without state takeover – the BOE has to make some drastic changes in the leadership of the district. Now.
Demolishing a $60,000 house that King Hinton foolishly squandered $98,000 to buy is just another example of his arrogance and disregard for the taxpayers of Peoria. Of course having the house sit there vacant and deteriorating is a visual reminder to the public of that million dollar Glen Oak blunder. I wonder if the demolition work will be put out for bid and when it does go out will Hinton also be disclosing more properties will be torn down in the near future? The more homes to destroy means larger demolition companies would bid. On the other hand maybe the King already was some of his buddies in line to tear them down one unit at a time so the large operators won’t chose to bid on them individually. Please, NEVER underestimate Hinton and his love of hidden agendas! ^oo^~
PrairieCelt, If I recall correctly, it was the former homeowners who were allowed to gut the homes before they moved out since the houses were slated to be demolished to make way for the silent majorities new school.
Maybe when the demolish all of them, they can place “Hinton’s Herbatorium” there so we can see what the hell everyone was smoking when this deal started.
PI: That is entirely possible. Does anyone know any of the former owners well enough to phone and ask? Then we could put the rumors to bed or ask some serious questions of the BOE.
PC: We can Ask all the serious questions that we want — we have all done that— we just never get any serious answers, as in 100% truthful and 100% complete answers.
Yes, I know that I play this piano key — still have not received a ‘truthful’ answer about last year’s funding of the house purchases. Statute does not allow for acquisition of properties from Oper. & Main. Fund dollars (via FOIA) and that is how at least one property was purchased prior to the fund transfer (Oper. & Main Fund to Site Acquisition) that was approved but never done according to Mr. Cahill.
So, what are we missing about this picture?
I have heard secondhand that the salvage rights were assigned to the former property owners upon demolition only. I have not been able to confirm that assertion.
I have not seen any signs of interior demo at any of these properties. No dumpsters, no people hauling stuff out, just vacant properties deteriorating.
Dilapidated houses just gives more power to PSD150 when they try to justify bulldozing entire neigbhorhoods. That’s why we called code enforcement back in October to force the district to maintain the properties they were so desperate to own.
Karrie,
It’s anybody’s guess why Cahill told you that fund transfer was never made. According to the district’s budget report on their web site as of June 30, 2006 the Site & Construction/Capital Improvement fund supposedly was to have $3,381,113 in cash and investments. That number compares to only $1,672,477 in the Operations & Maintenance. So logically speaking there PROBABLY was sufficient money last year in the Site & Construction fund to have squandered the $988,500 for those over priced properties.
I’m still baffled about the idea of paying prices which were way over the fair market value and then to add further insult to the taxpayers to permit the sellers any scavenger rights upon demolition! Those sellers and that realtor were laughing all the way to the bank singing the “Oh what a fool King Hinton is†song! ^oo^~
You’re lucky you got that image when you did. For some reason, Peoria GIS.com has removed the addresses and street names. All that’s left in their place is property ID numbers.
Court Lester Cahill and King Hinton are soooooooo brilliant and caring aren’t they? Here they spent $877,500 of taxpayer money to buy 8 homes which they now say “They just weren’t good houses to begin with†and “They’ve outlasted their useful livesâ€. Thanks to Cahill/Hinton they stepped right up with taxpayer money and relieved those homeowners of that burden. Not just at market value but at exaggerated prices! – You know, being paid $98,000 for a house valued at $68,000 makes your heart yearn for these Robin Hoods doesn’t it? And then to be told their homes weren’t really any good anyway many sting for a moment, but the windfall sales price softened that pain.
One last thought – they sure know how to get off on the right foot with the Chinese teachers don’t they? Some of these horrible old houses will be used to house the Chinese teachers! Hee hee hee, even these folks who haven’t even moved here yet can be offended by Cahill/Hinton! Is this a great country or what? ^oo^~
Karrie: about your unanswered questions- go to a school board meeting and simply ask these questions be answered to the publcic-I know they won’t have a dialect with you then, but it will put some pressure on them to answer them somehow. If you know a member, ask that person to get the answers for you. Good luck!
The houses weren’t that good to begin with? That is BS. Ok, I know of one instance where that is BS. 2212 Prospect (house bordering the park)was\is a beautiful home on the inside. My friends rented it from the owner for a few years not too long ago. They spent a lot of time remodeling it, etc. The basement needed finishing, but the rest of the house was very nice.
If this house is past its usefulness, I believe my house is older, so I guess mine is too? Now I KNOW that is BS.
RomanII: Thank you for the great idea. Nevertheless, I have already done that and still no answers were given that make any match. BOE members are not able to get any answers either as I have tried that method too. Either way, always the runaround.
On Dec. 21, 2006, I received this answer from David Gorentz in response to my question asked at a Dec. 18, 2006 BOE public meeting.
“In regard to your question at the last Board of Education meeting, it is my understanding that all land acquired on Prospect has been paid for from the Site and Construction Fund. Although it was contemplated to be paid from the Operations and Maintenance Fund or to transfer funds from O&M to the Site and Construction Fund, the administration decided not to do so.”
Meanwhile, during October 2006 via FOIA I received documents which verified that the monies had been dispersed from the Oper. & Main Fund.
Hum — does not match.
VIA IL State Statute – BOE publishes a public hearing notice (think newspaper) to hold a hearing to propose a budget amendment. Then a recommendation goes from the hearing to the BOE and in open session the BOE must take action. The BOE approved a $1.6 million dollar fund transfer.
So, the BOE and the public would think that this fund transfer had occurred? Yes or no? By what authority would the administration be able to not make a fund transfer except to hold another published budget amendment hearing and undo the cycle by the proper authority of the BOE?
One Feral Kat — defer to you…..