As expected, the adult use ordinance change was approved by the council 8-2 (Jacob abstaining, Sandberg and Nichting voting against) and the Class A liquor licenses for 500 Main St. (former Euro Jack’s) and 414 Hamilton were approved 9-1 (Jacob abstaining, Sandberg voting against).
But what’s really interesting to me is some of the rhetoric that is reported from last night. Unfortunately, I couldn’t attend the meeting, and of course it wasn’t broadcast since it was held on a Monday this week. But according to the Journal Star, WEEK.com, and 1470 WMBD, the council members said this:
Ardis said the potential of Big Al’s moving opens up the possibility of “one of the biggest projects that could happen Downtown since the Civic Center.”
At-large Councilman Eric Turner, however, said the votes were based on an issue of what is best for Downtown Peoria, saying that it was “dying” and losing out in economic development to East Peoria.
“The issue is not about Big Al’s, but it’s about economic development,” Turner said. “We stand to lose if we don’t make changes and start looking out for the economic development future of this city.”
Ardis says the reason the public doesn’t know more about the proposed development is because the plan has not been brought before the council yet.
“Nothing is what it appears to be until it appears to be what it is. We really don’t have all the details about this project and as time passes they’ll no more about it and they’ll be more comfortable with what were proposing to do,” says Clyde Gulley Jr.
Mayor Ardis made it a point to remind citizens that Big Al’s is doing the city a huge favor by agreeing to change locations.
In other words, even though we the citizens know nothing officially about this new development, we need to change ordinances and okay liquor licenses to make it happen based on blind faith in the city council. Even though this hotel project “has not been brought before the council yet,” according to Mayor Ardis, all the council people know about it because they’ve been skirting around the Open Meetings Act by meeting with the developer two at a time. That engenders a lot of trust, doesn’t it?
It’s clear from the comments above that the justification for approving the liquor licenses and the change to the adult use ordinance was to make way for a development project that is still being kept a secret from the public. Without the hotel project connected to it, these requests never would have passed the council. Thus, I think the citizens have a right to know what this project is that is influencing the council. I mean, if this isn’t a back-room deal, I don’t know what is.
Don’t get me wrong. This hotel may indeed be a “wonderful development,” as Randy Ray described it. I’m not prejudging the project. I’m just saying that the council is not acting with transparency on public policy issues, and that’s not good governance.
One other thing that I can’t resist commenting on: Downtown Peoria is “dying,” according to Councilman Turner. Dying? You mean the original Civic Center, Civic Center expansion, Riverfront Village, ballpark, Riverplex, etc., etc., have all been abject failures? So noted.
CJ,
I voted and spoke against the adult ordinance change which extended “Graandfathering” to a new location and the undelying TIF ordinance. I voted for the two site approvals for liquor licenses.
Jacob abstained on the adult license because it only affected on business and the two site approvals. Jacobvoted for the TIF ordinance
Nichting voted against both site approvals and the adult ordinance change. Nichting voted for the TIF ordinance.
Everyone else voted yes on everything, The TIF, The adult ordinance modification, and the two site approvals.
The criticaal vote as it relates to the relocation of the adult business was approving the ordinance modification that “defines” “more in compliance” as an existing adult business is considered more in compliance if it moves to a location that is father away percentage wise from residential zoned areas than the percentage it currently is out of compliance for churches/schools which is required to be 500 feet. The current location of ig Als is 88 feet or 0.176 compliant. The current location IS COMPLIANT with distance to residential zoned districts. The new location on Hamilton Blvd is within the 750 feet from residential requirement of 750 feet but far exceeds the 750 feet multiplied by 0.17600001 or 132 feet from residential zoned districts.
By approving the ordinance as written Big Als previously compliant for distances to residential zoned properties can locate within 132 feet of a residential zoned property. Not my definition of “Bringing closer into compliance”
Glad to see the council is going to try and make this happen. This is a huge project and they see that. We have lost too much to East Peoria over the years (riverboat & large hotels) because of a couple of mayors of past deciding what was “best” for Peoria and it’s citizens.
Maloof didn’t think we needed the gambling boat and Grieves wasn’t going to allow a hotel on the Sears block because that would compete with his. Thank goodness Ardis does not own a hotel.
It just seems like everytime a project comes up in this town there is a group of people just waiting to shoot it down.
I’m sure you’ll be disappointed to learn that it was in fact broadcast on Comcast Cable Channel 22, or at least it was at my home. Sorry you missed it, it was quite entertaining. Even my wife came over and watched for awhile.
Councilman Sandberg’s description of the “more in compliance” test utilized by the staff and majority of the City Council in approving the modified grandfathering is spot on. I think the majority of the City Council is utilizing a rationale that is wrong, misguided, and flawed logically. They are on a “slippery pole” on this one.
I personally have no problem with the business remaining in Peoria or relocating – to each his own. However, I am opposed to the manner in which the new location is apparently going to be approved. We can now apply this logic to any number of issues and determine that while the action wouldn’t normally be approved under the existing ordinances; we will approve because we’re “more in compliance” or are “no worse off”.
Terrible approach to public policy.
Deja vu: Gulley telling citizens one thing and doing another — deferral issue — at least he is being consistent in not telling constituents what he will actually do. How about he says one thing and then you can expect the opposite?
Turner: Similar logic that Gale Thetford used when the landswap for the Riverplex (aka Recplex) was approved. It is not about the value of the land it is about moving this project forward (the old keeping the project on track mantra.)
I agree with CJ, Gary and Peo Proud — terrible approach to public policy.
when I first heard about this project I thought to myself there is no way they will be able to get Big Al’s moved. This thing will get stalled out in the council chambers for months. There will be lawsuites and it will end up costing the city lots of money and in the end the whole project will fall apart and we will loose another hotel project.
To my amazement they actually made some good quick decisions last night and past some things to help this project along. Good job city council and mayor!
Now lets keep the ball rolling and build a hotel.
Hey look East Peoria, we can make things happen here too!
for Karrie: Let me think… why would you point out Turner and Gulley for criticism in this article? Is the Mayor’s contribution insignificant? (Oh, yeah… I forgot. He is)
C.J. “It’s clear from the comments above that the justification for approving the liquor licenses and the change to the adult use ordinance was to make way for a development project that is still being kept a secret from the public.”
The land acquisition is not complete on the big project. It’s still a private project. No one has applied for any building permits, no zoning changes, nothing. The TIF agreement will be discussed in public, and if approved, will be done by a public vote by people the electorate can vote out of office in April if they are so inclined.
And as a voter and a taxpayer, I would hope that the council would would consider the effect refusal would have on an $100 million project. I would have voted to approve the move regardless, based on my respect for property rights alone.
We vote these people in office to do exactly what they did. For once they did exactly that. Who cares if they met with two council persons at a time. It was legal and as of right now, it is private money that is being vetted. When the project (if it ever does) comes before the council officially, then it becomes a public issue. There may be a whole host of reasons why the people investing in this “secret” project don’t want to let too much out. Maybe a competitor could throw a wrench into the works or whatever. We are supposed to trust our council to do the right thing and while I’ll agree many times they may not have, maybe this time they are. It’s possible.
As for Big Al’s move to wherever, either on Hamilton or across the street, why is this a big deal? Big Al’s has been here as a business for at least 40 years and even though I don’t go there (never been there in fact) it does pay taxes and it does have employees. In fact, it is moving away from and out of site of the lone church it butts up against. If you think that by passing this that strip joint owners will come out of the woodwork and want to open a strip joint next to a KinderKare or a church, I think you are all worrying too much.
We have enough vacant lots and holes in the ground downtown and if this is going to wipe out a block of ugly bars for a new hotel which renovates the older one, then go for it!
As for this ordinance change or exception or whatever coming back to bite us in the butt, well, only time will tell because if it isn’t this it will be something else. It always is.
On a related topic….now that Emtronics is out for council, C.J. have you made a decision?
Thank You, supporters of Downtown Peoria revitalization efforts! CJ Summers and Karrie (with an I.E.) Alms are, just, chronic meddlers. There’s no reasoning with such people who ALWAYS suspect ” back room deals ” , conspiracies, and espionage are involved. So, why bother?
(laughter) All THIS drama in Peoria IL about a, typical, urban hotel project! I wouldn’t be surprised if the next allegations CJ and Karrie made included gangsters, missing strippers, and ” little black books ” !
kcdad: point of reference —- same rationalizations and behaviors which have been used before. Daring to be redundant in the face of PEORIA’s commentary — history repeats itself — just check out some books from the public library — Clyde has shown that same type of behavior and Eric sounded like Thetford. I do not agree with the Mayor on this issue — and when I have worked on neighborhood projects in years past — he kept his word and didn’t change his vote.
Gadflies beware. This one’s a steamroller.
What evidence do any of you have that the council is not being transparent? The open meetings law says that no more than three can meet at one time. Meeting two-by-two is probably a pretty normal occurence. I would imagine that large private development deals like this are somewhat confidential since they include purchasing land (the minute I know some big hotel wants my land, the price goes WAY up). The council was obviously told that Big Al’s would need to move to make this “wonderful development” happen, but how do you know that the council really knows more than they are letting on? Further, I doubt that if they had a solid set of details to share that it would change the opinion of most of you.
CJ: You and Beth Akeson are friends and both members of the HOP commission, right? Do the two of you ever talk strategy or issues outside the public meeting? If so, you are likely guilty of the same “skirting” as the council, wouldn’t you say?
City Councils, school boards, etc., all seem to operate in the same manner–much talking behind the “scenes.” West Peoria is embroiled in the same kind of zoning problem with a mayor and council members who seem to have made a deal (at least a promise of a promise) with a housing developer before being up front with the general public. The residents are fighting back–but, of course, the aldermen will have the final word, so the “fighting” has to be “persusaive.”
One last thing: I’m all for public debate and public input. But I’m also a realist. There is a difference between “making a deal” behind closed doors, and simply being informed of an issue. If everyone waited for a public meeting to share details, I’m not sure the meeting would ever end. Tuesday night cannot be the first time these folks hear about an issue. There must be some medium by which elected officials are given the details they need in order to make a public decision. CJ and Karrie are alledging (albeit subtly) that the die has already been cast and that 9 or 10 of the officials have already collectively (rather than individually) decided are just waiting for the meeting.
Sharon, I noticed the “Save our City” signs up in some yards in West Peoria.
Thanks for the info.
In West Peoria–An out-of-town developer wants to tear down the old St. Joseph home (and all the beautiful trees, etc.) to build an “up-scale” dorm-like structure to attract Bradley students. There will be tennis courts, swimming pool, and a 350-car parking lot–right behind the yards of the residents on Edgehill Court and across the street from residents on Heading. The mayor and the aldermen–(I believe, I am, correct in saying) had already made plans to make this a TIF district, etc., (as a promise to the developer) before telling only the residents on Edgehill and Heading. They didn’t realize that other West Peoria residents would care–so we weren’t informed. I found out from a friend who is on the Plan Commission–a group that took the first step in recommending the change in zoning. I don’t believe the council had even discussed the issue at a meeting until much planning had already taken place. I was baffled since West Peoria has a very “small town” feel–I thought the mayor, of all people, would understand that we would rally behind an effort against destroying this area–probably the only “green” space in West Peoria. The area has to be rezoned for multiple dwelling housing–and West Peorians are rallying to fight the rezoning. Bradley is in no way associated with this project–and it seems quite plausible that they will continue to build their own dorms–so West Peorians don’t believe this new independent “dorm” space will be filled with Bradley students; besides the housing is not actually designed for families, etc. Even though there would be “apartments,” It is to be rented “by the bed.” Sorry to take up space for an unrelated issue–my point, of course, is that there are some similarities to the Big Al’s issue. Also, the developer met with aldermen–undoubtedly one or two at a time.
Sud asked
I thought the quotes above were clear enough. The council’s decision to grant the liquor licenses and change the adult use ordinance was predicated on making way for a secret development that they all clearly know about and support (else, why would they make way for it?). I don’t know how to make it any plainer.
And there’s nothing wrong with that, per se. It’s not the intent of the Open Meetings Act to preclude all socializing among members of a public body.
Agreed.
Because they said they know more than they are letting on. Read the quotes again. Besides, if they don’t know “more than they are letting on,” then their action Monday was worse than I thought; it was downright reckless.
It depends on what opinion to which you’re referring. The opinion at issue here is transparency; I would not accuse them of not being transparent if they were, in fact, being transparent.
Yes.
Yes.
Mmmm, no. The situations are not analogous. Beth and I are both commissioners, and we’re less than a majority of a quorum. Anything we might discuss cannot influence the rest of the commission unless/until we bring it up at a commission meeting in open session and share it with the rest of the commissioners. In contrast, all of the council members met with the developers and then took public action — approving liquor licenses and changes to the adult use ordinance — based on that private information.
And there is — the agenda, the “Issues Update,” etc. There are any number of options available to the council — the thing is, these are all public documents that anyone can access.
No, although upon rereading my original post I’ll concede that it’s reasonable to take it that way. Not my intent, however. What I’m saying is that the city council is making decisions based on ex parte communication from interested parties that should be in the public record. For example, the liquor license requests go before the liquor commission for a public hearing, and the decision on whether to permit the liquor license should be based on the information given in that public record. By their own admission, the council did not make their decision based on the public record, but on their ex parte communication from, at minimum, the hotel developers. The adult use ordinance change is a thinly-veiled policy decision that in actuality affects only one business and is arguably site-specific since it was specifically tailored to allow Big Al’s to move from 519 Main to 414 Hamilton.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not about to claim that their actions were illegal, but I can say with certainty that their actions were not transparent. You may argue that such lack of transparency is justified, and I would of course disagree, but I don’t think you can honestly argue that this process has been transparent. It hasn’t.
C.J. “I thought the quotes above were clear enough. The council’s decision to grant the liquor licenses and change the adult use ordinance was predicated on making way for a secret development that they all clearly know about and support (else, why would they make way for it?). I don’t know how to make it any plainer.”
If it’s secret, how do you know about it? The area is part of a TIF. That someone is coming along to take advantage of it is not an unexpected development. Also, as you know, there is still property acquisition going on. There’s not a proposed TIF agreement ready to be submitted. If one is ready in time for the final November council meeting, it will be presented. And discussed. And debated. And voted up or down.
I’m not shilling for these people. They can do that themselves. But lets not get conspiratorial. This is hardly the first Big Project to come before the council. Nothing is going on here that seems out of the ordinary to me.
It is NOTHING like when Mayor Ransburg met secretly with Pere owners to plan how to use HRA taxes to help them remodel. No HRA monies are going to be used for this. And as you reported yourself, the council members — the public’s representatives — are being kept appraised of the basics of the development. Ransburg kept his secret meetings secret from other council members.
You are taking the fact that developers are talking PRIVATELY to the owners of the properties they want to buy and develop — and that council members are honoring their desire to keep negotiations private — and casting that information in a way the makes it seem sinister. It’s not.
I6t’s not the council that’s being secretive. It’s the private sector that keeping their business deals close to the vest. There will be opportunities to debate and examine that part of this that IS the public’s business: The TIF agreement.
But as long as this project complies with the law, the right of the public to interfere with this is limited. As it should be.
Billy:
I heard about it just like you did and the same way the Journal Star did — from leaked information. I didn’t hear about it through any kind of public process. The difference is, you and I and the Journal Star are not making public policy decisions based on that info.
No argument there. But Big Al’s isn’t taking advantage of the TIF. The TIF has nothing to do with Big Al’s moving or being granted a liquor license at its other properties. You alternately separate and combine the issues when it suits your argument.
Yeah, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But the liquor licenses and changes to the adult use ordinance was based on that agreement that hasn’t been submitted, presented, discussed, debated, or voted up or down. If they’re going to use that anticipated TIF agreement as the reason for approving liquor licenses and changing ordinances, then it should be on the public record before that decision is made.
I don’t think there’s a conspiracy. Let’s not exaggerate my point.
Wait, you just said it hadn’t come before the council yet, didn’t you?
I’m doing no such thing. The developers can talk privately to the owners of the properties all they want, and council members can keep those negotiations private if they know about them. I’m not saying anything is sinister about that. What I’m saying is that the council shouldn’t use that ex parte information to make ordinance changes and approve liquor licenses. Their decisions should be based on what’s on the public record.
But what about the public hearing before the liquor commission about whether to grant a liquor license for 414 Hamilton? Is that not the public’s business? Yet pertinent information was withheld from the commission and, by extension, the public. Then that withheld information was used by the council to justify granting the license. I think you’re being deliberately obtuse.
How much information do you NEED to know about the hotel project in order to decide whether to let a nudie bar move a block down the street? You seem to be of the opinion that unless ALL the details of the hotel project must be known. Why? Because if you don’t like the details of what might happen AFTER Big Al’s moves, you want the right to oppose the move one block down the street. In other words, you reserve the right to be an obstructionist.
Feh.
Billy,
I think you’re confusing the issues – perhaps you’re blinded by the pasties.
Issue 1: Is a hotel development appropriate / good in this location?
Issue 2: Should the City of Peoria revise it’s adult use ordinance to accommodate one business by watering down the standards that have been in place for decades regarding appropriate distances between this type of business and residential/church facilities?
Really, they are two different issues and shouldn’t be mixed together other than to obfuscate the issue. It doesn’t have to be an either or situation – unless we let those pushing it define it as such.
Billy — No, not all the details; just the ones the council is using as justification for their decision. It’s called “open government” — something you used to support.
And I’m not obstructing anything. All I want is for the public’s business to be done in public. Sorry if that offends you.
No, no, no. Answer my question: What do you need to know about the hotel project before you are comfortable with Big Al’s moving. What discussion did the public need to have about the HOTEL project before a vote should have been allowed on whether Big Al’s should be allowsed to move one block to the East? Is it possible that the powers-that-be could have ever supplied you with ANY amount of information aboutthe HOTEL PROJECT that could have affected your opinion in any way whether Big Al’sshould have been allowedto move.
After all, it is YOU who state that because the hotel project prompted Big Al’s to want to move, that the all plans issue of the HOTEL had to be releasedtothe public before a decision could be made.
😉
I can’t believe I’ve turned into a council apologist, or am taking Billy’s side, but I kind of agree. While the hotel and the liquor license are obviously connected, I’m not sure the liquor commission should consider that. Isn’t their job to evaluate whether a particular location is suitable for alcohol sales? In fact, if they had been told that the application was in response to a specific set of “wonderful developments”, might that not have unduly swayed their opinion.
I’m with Billy, I don’t see how the city wins with you. I would gather from what I’ve read on this blog, others and in the paper that the Council knows the rough outline of a potential deal. Actually, this blog might have more details written down than they’ve ever seen. I’m not sure what else you wanted to see.
I’m starting to look at this from a different point of view. The new hotel, etc., will provide a better view from my church’s parking lot. Quite honestly, I would like to live in a world without establishments such as Big Al’s–but at this point we aren’t going to eliminate them through zoning ordinances. My church has chosen to stay in an area where such businesses are “legal,” but maybe a new downtown location would not be all that objectionable (from my point of view).
C.J.: “All I want is for the public’s business to be done in public. Sorry if that offends you. ”
I am not offended in the least. I want the same thing. I don’t think that “doing the public’s business in public” would prevent council members from meeting with members of the public to discuss issues that are going to eventually be discussed and voted upon in public session.
Journal Star editorials aside, this is NOTHING like what Ransburg did with the Pere Marquette owners four years ago. He was negotiating a plan to give them HRA money, and he did so in secret.
Billy:
Irrelevant and immaterial. This isn’t about me and what I need to know. It’s about the public’s business being conducted in public.
(1) Big Al’s moving has not been on the city’s agenda yet. What was on the agenda was a change to the city’s adult use ordinance that would allow Big Al’s to move to another non-compliant location downtown, and a couple of liquor license requests for the owners of Big Al’s.
(2) What the public needs to know about the hotel project is only the information about it that is being used by the council in making their decisions.
Is English your first language? Because that’s not at all what I said. Like I said before, I think you’re deliberately misrepresenting what I said just for sport. Again, what I stated was that because the hotel project was used as the basis for the council’s decision, that information should be public information.
Sud:
EXACTLY!!!! And the same goes for the City Council! That’s the point I’ve been making all along!
The information you’ve seen on my blog is not part of the public record as far as the city council or the liquor commission is concerned. Thus, it shouldn’t be used as the basis for the council’s decision. But it was, in fact, the basis of the council’s decision.
Ask yourself this: If there were no hotel deal — never existed; no investors or plans or anything for that block — and Big Al’s came to the city and asked for a liquor license for 414 Hamilton, but offered no public testimony as to what kind of business they were going to put at that location and were coy about their plans, do you think the council would have approved it? And if Big Al’s asked the city to let them move to another non-compliant location downtown and let them take their grandfathered status with them, do you think the city would have rewritten the ordinance and had it on the agenda for the next meeting, and passed it?
No, this whole deal was approved for one reason: there’s a “wonderful development” that allegedly will not happen unless the council approves the liquor requests and the ordinance change. If that’s the underlying reason these issues were passed, then it should have been made public.
Except it IS just like what Ransburg did in principle. If the “deal” to approve the relocation of Big Al’s by changing the adult use ordinance was discussed and agreed upon during the “non-public” meetings. The only difference is one case involved money and this one involves (at least so far) agreeing to violate long-standing zoning provisions regarding location of adult uses.
The only difference I see is you agree with the outcome of this one (and the current Mayor) and disagreed with the prior one.
I really don’t think any of you will be happy until Peoria looks post WW2 Europe. Deserted and falling apart.
I’ve been traveling to a lot of new cities over the past 8 months and I can’t believe that at one time, I was actually drinking the kool-aid and thought Peoria had a vibrant downtown….what an idiot I was.
Downtown is dying because most people never have a reason to come downtown. I work downtown and when I first came to work here, after working in downtown Chicago I was shocked. It is hard to buy even a pack of gum or bag of chips downtown. Almost no fast food, and forget trying to buy a sandwich after 4 pm, there are none unless you go to a bar/grill type of place. Someone stopped me on the street yesterday morning at 7:30 am and asked where he could buy a dozen donuts to take to a meeting and I had to tell him there was nothing downtown.
Downtown Peoria needs a Dunkin Donuts, a McDonalds or similar and maybe a 7-11 type store so people can spend money downtown.
I go with Ben on this one. Before anyone starts screaming about “Fast food downtown!!!!!” “How boorish!!!!” These shops generate income and can easily be made to fit in with current street/shop layouts downtown. Make them look downright fancy!
Ben and New Voice — The best “reason to come downtown” is because one lives downtown. More residential opportunities downtown (at all ranges of affordability) would provide the infusion of people that makes donut shops, street-level retail, etc., a winning business proposition. People aren’t going to be drawn downtown for fast-food when there are plenty of fast-food places closer to their homes out in the suburbs. But if there are people living downtown, now these types of businesses would be more convenient for those residents, so they don’t have to drive out of downtown. Residential is the key, which is why we need to get working on the Warehouse District plans, and why I’ve always advocated for a mix of residential and retail on the Sears block instead of dedicating the whole block to a museum that will close at 5 p.m.
C.J. I hear you and agree, but wouldn’t a more ‘vibrant’ downtown attract residents? I do agree with your assessment of Warehouse Dist, Sears Block development. I would argue that business and residential development has to occur simultaneously….?
Novus Vox — It’s a gradual thing, but in general, I believe the residents have to come first. Think about the migration to the ‘burbs. People move out to the middle of nowhere first, then the retail follows them.