Last October, Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken made a motion to spend $183,750 of the $200,000 that was budgeted in the 2007 Capital Improvement Program for use on the Sheridan Triangle project. That motion was defeated 6-5. Why? Well, there were lots of concerns about the fact that starting this project would require money to be spent in subsequent years to complete it, and “the Council needed to recognize their limited resources” and “decide how to execute strategy to complete projects,” according to the Oct. 9 minutes. There was also a desire to “determine what the priorities were for the entire City” before committing to this project. So it had to wait until after the next budget cycle to get passed.
But my, how things are different when we get to the fifth district’s road project that was approved last night:
The $3.3 million project – $1.175 million of it paid by the city [emphasis mine], $1.175 million paid by Peoria County, $1 million from Northwoods Community Church and $150,000 from developers of the area – targets a road improvement of Wilhelm from Northtrail Drive to Allen and also on a stretch of Allen.
It’s not mentioned in the article, but Van Auken and First District Councilman Clyde Gulley asked Public Works Director Dave Barber if this was budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program budget. Answer: some of the cost was, but not all of it. And furthermore, they won’t know the total cost until after the project goes out to bid. Nevertheless, it passed 10-1. By voting for this project, the council committed itself to spending 2009 dollars above and beyond what the council agreed to budget in the last negotiations, even though the city is projecting a deficit in 2009.
Strangely, on this fifth-district road project, there was no concern raised about the city’s limited resources, or about setting priorities or executing strategies. There was no delay. There was no CIP budget amendment. There was no discussion on where that extra money is going to come from in 2009, whose funding was going to get cut to make up the shortfall.
This all begs the question: Why the double standard?
I’m sure that ending question was rhetorical? Right?
Is it normal for a church to give a $1 million for a road construction project?
You’re kidding about asking this right CJ. It’s the golden rule…He who has the gold, rules. Go chat with a few city staff about the comprehensive plans for extended roads, subdivisions, shopping expansions, industry. This is where the bulk of funding, staff time, advertising regarding Peoria’s amenenties goes. etc. In short. This is the vision of the city. The last comprehensive planning session on Land use, focused on the growth in the 5th district, soley. I had to bring up things like the Eagle View area, etc and then was told that we could then draw what we wanted on the maps provided. I attended a planning commission meeting regarding the expansion plans a while back. Millions are going into this and it will not be questioned. Our fighting for scraps will continue, the goal is the master plan of economic developement in green space period. It continues because the general public does not become involved in the decisions regarding where our tax dollars are prioritized and spent, it’s that simple. Want change, start packing the council chambers during next year’s budget sessions.
It isn’t a double standard. That area is rapidly growing, whether you like it or not and the Sheridan Road Triangle area is probably shrinking in population. Wilhelm should have been dealt with several years ago, but once again, our fair city delayed – same thing on the Allen Road/Alta Road/Rt 174 triangle.
To be safe, all traffic on Allen should stop at the curve where it meets Rt 174 – meaning that the intersection should no longer even exist. Traffic should be routed over to Rt 174 and Pacific St. where they could install the obligatory traffic signal in a safer manner and save money.
However, out city planners will probably install signals at BOTH intersections, out of stupidity.
“It isn’t a double standard”?? Come on, mdd, you don’t really believe that! You know as well as everybody else it’s a double standard, and you why it is. This also proves the old adage that governments can always find the money for what they want, and plead poverty when something isn’t on their priority list.
“Sheridan Road Triangle area is probably shrinking in population.”
Self fulfilling neglect on the part of the city.
” YOU KNOW IT! “
If we don’t put money into the Heart of Peoria, people will be encouraged to ‘flee’ northward. This will drive up demand for homes with higher price tags. These homes and the land they are built on command higher profit margins than any redevelopment in the Heart of Peoria. Higher profits make developers happy, realtors happy, builders happy. These constituencies contribute and support politicians who support them. Everyone wins right? Higher taxes? Yeah eventually that might happen cause the low density won’t be sufficiently supportive of the aging newer neighborhoods. But hey, the developers, realtors, and builders have a solution for you !!! Come check out the even newer development way out over here…. rinse repeat.
We have to break this model. We need to make redevelopment just as attractive if not more so, than converting farmland.
Smart Growth !
You are correct about the eventual need for higher taxes because low density subdivisions do not generate sufficient revenue to cover infrastructure and future maintenance costs of the subdivisions themselves. More area to cover affects the bottom line of many departments (think Public works, Fire and Police etc). This is one of the reasons Peoria’s coffers are not flush with cash.
Smartgrowth advocates have known this for quite a while, yet as you have mentioned, politicians are not listening or doing the calculations possibly because they are supported by those benefiting from the un-fettered growth. Additionally the average citizen does not have the time to pay attention to these issues; so as we have seen, many projects get approved with little or no resistance. After they are built is another story…
Peoria is facing this dilemma: How can our city have both vibrant older neighborhoods and vibrant growth. Again you are right-we need to adopt new policies.
In a mean time maybe requiring a cost/benefit analysis before new projects are approved…would be a good first step.
Since 1976, federal law has provided tax incentives for historic preservation [see also Tax Reform Act of 1986]. Illinois is one of the few states that does not offer any REAL hist preservation tax incentive program. Funding like that might go a long way when and if Peoria ever decided to make some use of its older buildings, etc. I know this is a little off subject, but…..
“Historic Preservation” and “Re-development” are as much in conflict as misdirected formation of the “growth cells” and the concept of maintaining older neighborhoods.
What Peoria should do is what Chicago and other equally ancient cities have done with their older and challenged areas. We should designate areas as redevelopment zones and provide real incentives and support (the opposite of “Southtown”) for new, well planned, pedestrian friendly housing and neighborhoods. In many areas a developer could acquire and demolish entire dilapidated and boarded up areas of the east bluff and near north side for less than growth cell land could be purchased and configured. With city tax breaks and infrastructure incentives and a master planning process we could revitalize many areas.
This isn’t new folks. Most of the areas below the bluff are at the end of their 3rd and 4th re-development stage. Those areas have been reinvented and should be again and the areas of the east, west and center bluff should be also. The difference this time is that we have the opportunity to plan things in a manner that recognizes and assists pedestrian, mass transit and neighborhood friendly policies that recognize $4 a gallon gas prices and the potential to re-establish existing residential areas. And we can do so while righting some of the wrongs such as expanding streets while ignoring sewers and building outward while ignoring our core.
It won’t happen in my lifetime. With the likes of the current council and their own selfish agendas and lack of a common vision and backbone to serve the community as a whole instead of their friends or neighbors, it won’t happen in the lifetime of my children either.
I had read CJ’s post on this topic earlier this week and responded with frustration of another nature, but was getting caught up on some emails and read the council minutes from 3-11. I then crawled into bed and my mind starting working..yeah I know, dangerous…I am congnizant that how a congregation spends its money is between them and God. I also don’t have any idea what the mission of this church is and what programs they support, but was struck that first of all they have $1 million to give to the city and second that the priority for it was to fix an intersection that is inconvienent to their members, but wondered why, as mentioned later in the council agenda that a homeless issue was going to be addressed with tax dollars. It seemed to me that a cool million would go a long way to help some pretty poor, destitute people have shelter, perhaps some job training, nourshing meals, etc. When looking at the increasing homeless population it is not the “train hopping hobos” that older movies portray, but entire families forced to live in the streets, homeless youth, domestic violence victims, etc. There are a lot of people who simply fall through the cracks. The working poor who don’t get the public aid benefits of the people who haven’t worked in 7 generations. I guess when one moves farther north, they lose touch with the poverty, crime, and fight for survival of the inner city. I guess that “someone should take care of that”…I guess that someone(s) will need to be the city council, which does not seem to be in congruence with any scripture I have read. I guess it’s my non-profit social service mentality, but this is really rolling around in my mind. How much better would Peoria be, if the funds used to build these large, elaborate buildings, etc. went to fund the least among us. 1/4 of the families in the city are below federal poverty levels, 1/5 in Peoria County. Thats a lot of people that are dirt poor. Some are those who refuse to help themselves, drop out of school, hock drugs etc. But there is an entire “hidden” population of poor in plain site. Maybe we all could do a little more.
I have to agree with Paul Wilkinson. The money would go much farther given to assist homeless or those that are possibly going to be homeless without a little aid to tide them over. There are many senior citizens in this area that are living on next to nothing and are too proud to ask for help but are in desperate need. They worked all their lives and paid into taxes but now are not eligible for just the basics. They could use some of this sidewalk repair money just to live like humans. Children in our city are missing necessities in life. We need to concentrate on the necessities and not the amenities.
Paul,
I agree with you and SD [helping poor/elderly], but weren’t you a fervent supporter of the museum? One of the points I have been trying to make for so long is that for a quarter of the cost one of the old buildings downtown could be renovated/made museum ready in no time. You kill many birds with one stone. I know I am not the only advocate of this type of plan. $65 [now $65-$75] million seems a lot to spend on a museum downtown, even if it manages to come up with funds from another source. The posts on this blog make it very clear their are other major issues at hand in Peoria I am fairly sure Peo County isn’t going to buy into any kind of new tax either. Do you think this museum project is still REALLY in the best interest of Peoria City, etc?
No, I was not a fervent supporter of the musuem, if you mean by that a museum at all costs. I do think that if we build it, it should primarily come from private funding and/or build some type of endowment to run it, some tax dollars are okay as it is or should be a public type of project. I am not opposed to the museum, but would like to see that space utilized by all types of residents and visitors. The prices at most civic center events proclude a chunk of our population from enjoying them. Re: the million. I think the city should be fixing the intersection by the churches, that’s a public works project for the benefit and safety of the citizens. I think that money should also be spent to revitalize areas of town that have paid their dues for about 100 years as well. I think that by staying that decay, our city as whole will improve, I believe it will help improve Dist. 150 as well. I just wondered why the church’s million wasn’t spent on the homeless issue vs. city funding and city funding isn’t used on roads vs. the homeless issue. Just struck me as odd. Was down in Springfield today. Saw a man who appeared to be homeless. Saw another man buy him a sandwhich. Saw the homeless man leave the restaurant and return a few minutes later to thank the other man for helping him out. It was a good thing.
I have an idea. Now that InPlay is closed lets put our history museum on the first three floors of the Maxum Building. Leave Lakeview where it is at and come up with a new plan for the Sears Block that involves private development. And if we are lucky it might even bring in some tax revenue. win-win.
Paul,
O.K. Sounds good.
peoriafan,
We cannot consider the Maxum Building [or any building] until the Museum Group comes up with $1.2 million to hire another consulting firm! We wouldn’t want their heads to explode. One of them might even have a good idea. My God Man! This is Peoria! How can we accomplish anything without the benefit of some over-rated, over-charging consulting firm?