Peoria Journal Star

Journal Star joins 21st century, adds comments section

4 Comments

After reading the Journal Star’s Sunday editorial on-line, I was pleasantly surprised (shocked, actually) to find that they’ve added a comments section to their editorial page; don’t know if today is the first day for that or not, but it’s the first time I’ve seen it.

All I can say is: Welcome to the 21st century, Journal Star! Glad you could join us out here in the interactive media. I’m proud to say I got to leave the first comment on Sunday’s editorial. In case you don’t want to click over to their site to read it, here it is:

First of all, congratulations on adding a comments section to your on-line editorial page!

Secondly, you’re not recognizing the fact that these “naysayers,” as you call them, are indeed for something. For example:

(1) Kellar Branch conversion: The opponents of this plan that I know (including myself) are not against a trail per se, but rather for using this rail line for economic development. The path can be built next to the rail or along a different route, but an asset like a rail line with neutral access to eight line-haul carriers can’t be replaced. The rail line not only serves Carver Lumber, but can attract light industry and manufacturing companies (read: jobs) to Pioneer Park and other points along the line, such as the newly-vacant Cohen’s furniture warehouse in the Heights. Already there are two new companies on the Kellar Branch that want to use rail service. It would be foolish to throw away this asset.

(2) Glen Oak School Siting: The East Bluff neighbors have been very clear that they are for a new school in the center of their neighborhood where the current Glen Oak School is located. They’re advocating for it to be at Frye and Wisconsin, and Bob Manning has even offered the school board city money to help site it there! I would think that kind of community involvement and city support would be celebrated by the paper, not denigrated.

(3) Downtown Museum: I have heard very few who are against having a museum downtown. However, there are many who feel that the museum needn’t take up the entire Sears block and encompasses more disciplines than it can adequately support in the space proposed. The “naysayers” are for an adequately-sized Peoria history museum on part of the Sears block with the rest of the block commercially developed with retail and residential components, just like the Heart of Peoria Plan recommended (in fact, that’s why it’s in the Heart of Peoria Plan that way — because of public input received at the charrettes). All they’re against is the ballooning of the project to an art/history/science/nature/sports/hall-of-fame museum in a building that only takes up 1/3 of the square with the rest of the block set aside for open space.

I don’t know much about the ring road, so I can’t speak to that. But in each of the cases I’ve listed, people are indeed for something, not simply against new ideas.

4 thoughts on “Journal Star joins 21st century, adds comments section”

  1. Today is not the first day for comments. They were added within the past week. It’s a good feature that gives the Journal Star instant feedback.

  2. I predicted it, but that stupid editorial today still made me livid. CJ did a good job of pointing out that we who are FOR energy-efficient transportation, passenger and freight are not the “naysayers” (the Propaganda Star reflexively opposes, because it is not in their elitist agenda). Notice the Propaganda Star has yet to report the body blow the STB dealt their idiotic trail proposal – it will come, eventually, just takes time to invent a really biased piece. The bottom line is this “newspaper” is one of the biggest problems Peoria has. It supports almost every scheme to waste tax dollars (harldy ever met a tax increase it didn’t like), opposes anything that would upset the control of this area by the elitist establishment, selectively reports and distorts the news to support its agenda, AND, oh,I forgot, tells us we should keep it that way becuase it has “integrity”. B— S—.

  3. Good summary of museum stance. Adequately sized and with COMPETANT people involved with the planning!!!!!

  4. Excuse me. I may be misunderstood here. I meant it should be adequately sized and it SHOULD have COMPETANT people involved with the planning. True, many people are for a “museum,” but it is still a mystery why the needed funds cannot be raised. Or is it?

Comments are closed.