The New York Times recently published an article about big museum building projects that’s a must-read for all Peoria residents, leaders, and voters. The good news is, we haven’t actually built anything yet here in Peoria, so we still have time to correct our mistakes.
Within months of its opening in 1997, Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum Bilbao had given the language a new term and the world a new way of looking at culture. The “Bilbao effect,” many came to believe, was the answer to what ailed cities everywhere — it was a way to lure tourists and economic development — and a potential boon to cultural institutions.
Municipal governments and arts groups were soon pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into larger, flashier exhibition spaces and performance halls.
Now the economic downturn has reined in a lot of these big dreams and has also led to questions about whether ambitious building projects from Buffalo to Berkeley ever made sense to begin with. Some are arguing that arts administrators and their patrons succumbed to an irrational exuberance that rivaled the stock market’s in the boom years. […]
“Museums, when they saw how much money other museums were raising, said, ‘Oh, we can’t miss out on this,’ ” said Terry Riley, a former head of the Museum of Modern Art’s department of architecture and design, who helped oversee that museum’s renovation by Yoshio Taniguchi. In many cases, he added, “it’s almost as though money drove the decision.”
Later in the article, this observation is made by Adrian Ellis, introduced as “executive director of Jazz at Lincoln Center and the founder of AEA Consulting”:
“Cultural buildings became the way in which cities articulate their identity and vitality — they were driven not by the artistic community but by a civic agenda,” he said. Now the economy is pushing organizations into “deep reflection about what their purpose is and how best to realize it,” he said — reflection that can lead back to an arts-focused agenda, and to a renewed concern about “protecting their capacity to take artistic risks.”
“When you overexpand, you limit your ability to take those risks,” Mr. Ellis said. “Although expansion is usually seen as a sign of health, it is not always a sign of vitality.”
It’s time for the city, county, and arts community to wake up, abandon their “irrational exuberance,” and start working on a realistic, sustainable plan either to expand their current operation at Lakeview, or to build/renovate a smaller space downtown that is within their means. It’s painfully obvious that the stalled project they’ve been trying to build for the past five years is decided unrealistic.
On another museum thread, Vonster wrote:
“Institutional momentum is the problem with all these white elephant projects. Some group-think cadre has decided it’s going to happen and BY GOD IT’S GOING TO HAPPEN!”
Regrettably, I would agree with Vonster’s analysis! 🙁 And because Lakeview and company has already spent millions on planning this project as disclosed in annual tax forms— what would be the fall-out for having spent money on a project that is not completed? One can almost hear that taxpayers cannot stop this project because ……………..
At the recent Peoria County committee meeting for the approval of the $140,000, the money was being spent on these studies to “keep the project moving forward.” Fortunately, some county board members voted against these expenditures.
Sounds hauntingly familiar to the Riverplex when the land swap was called into question for land on the Riverfront which was to have been ‘open space for perpetuity’ … Councilwoman Thetford made similar comments about keeping the project going not the value of the land having to be comparable.
Same old story of group-think.
Meanwhile, private funding has not materialized but another $5M funding package from a bankrupt state which has just had it bond rating lowered. That means — not only does the State of Illinois NOT have the money in hand, all Illinois taxpayers will be paying more in debt service for a project that we do not need which is also poorly designed.
Illinois’ bond ratings are now the second lowest of all 50 states, trailing only the # 1 holder of this dubious honor–California. In practical terms this means Illinois will have to pay bondholders a higher interest rate to compensate for their higher risk.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/moodys_lowers_illinois_bond_ra.html
Whatever happened to “Trust is earned not given?” Many, many promises which are still unfilled leaves the taxpayer feeling hustled once again.
Quinn needs more support from other elected state officials and state lawmakers in finding solutions to the deficit, Kraft said in the statement. Illinois Comptroller Daniel Hynes rejected a proposal by Quinn to borrow $500 million to reduce a $4.5 billion backlog of unpaid bills.
its made up about the 5 million from the state
I feel like the problem isn’t so much the museums — or casinos, or civic centers, stadiums, or whatever — it’s the me-too-ism that says, “Woah, this museum brought in tourists, we should ALL build museums and we’ll ALL get tourists!” But there are only so many tourists to go around, and they’re looking for things that are unique and different. (The process is well-documented with casinos — they’re a cash cow as long as only one place in the region has them; as soon as they expand throughout the region, they become a net expense to all but a few lucky places, which are typically the first-comers to begin with.)
It’s not that cities shouldn’t build museums, or taxpayer-built stadia, or casinos, or civic centers … it’s that the city should examine itself and what makes it unique and appealing and pursue that thing, not every last thing to come down the pike that worked for OTHER cities.
Van Auken on the RiverPlex swap. State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, James W. Klopfenstein made the appraisal $5 per square foot each equal for both properties. The $5 square foot swap for the riverfront is dead property located behind an equally dead ball diamond. See if you can find it.
Some swap. ALL with taxspayer dollars. In the meantime the private sector affected keep raising their fees, probably just to exist.
Also supporting the equal value was Tom Tincher. And of course, the City Council and Ex-Mayor Grieves. Grieve’s Banner restaurant just went belly up. Grieves moved his home to a less property tax area to escape taxes he helped create.
See my blog on the subject “Peoria Park District and the RiverPlex Continuing Saga’s”, dated 11/26/08.
Who cares? Most of us today have a short memory of things that we think don’t directl affect us. Waiting and seeing is how the City got into the horrendous financial shape it is in. Not horrendous? Wait and see.
Merle: I think that you meant Thetford and not Van Auken regarding the Riverplex.
Eyebrows: I was talking with a perspective constituent — Peoria has an identity problem. Peoria tries to be like this city or that city and not like Peoria. What are our goals and vision?
Regrettably, Peoria continues to be like a Paramecium darting here and there with its’ many cilia only to run toward one fad and then hit a roadblock then to another fad and so on …. to make Peoria something. Just a something — any something because it’s better than nothing.
Eyebrows has it correct and the logic of her casino example extends to all ventures, for profit or not. We are witnessing that now as we do with every recession as economic Darwinism culls the weakest from every category.
Any who promoted the museum because they expect a financial return are at best naive and at worst soothsayers. I supported it solely because I want Peoria to have a respectable museum and don’t mind the personal investment (tax increase) that I won’t see back.
C.J., I don’t disagree with any of your logic, but it equally applies to the library boondoggle.
Besides their ‘reputations,’ what else do the parties involved with this museum have to loose by backing out of this project? Who knows, maybe this would actually do their reputations some good?
When you build non-profit and public facilities without the money on hand to build, you must borrow. The museum is not a $77 million building. The borrowed money paid back over 20 years adds an estimated extra $30+ million to the cost depending on the interest rate, the cost of the bond sale, etc.
Most are overlooking the key points, The private sector did not come up anywhere near the amount of money projected and this non-profit museum collects tax money all of its life, 50, 60, 70 years into the future. Even the promoters project it will lose $500,000 a year. (See their 18 month old “operating costs projections”) That loss includes a very small endowment of MAYBE $5 million paying 5% interest. If attendance of 240,000 visitors a year includes members with unlimited entrance, a promised 10% discount for Peoria County visitors, greatly reduced entrance and gallery charges for kids, a projected $8 million yearly operating costs by year 2032; this project will be a huge taxpayer “white elephant” on the riverfront.
This project is heading to be like so many other projects like the RiverPlex that was projected to now be making a profit of over $500,000 a year (JS, June 16, 1999) but instead loses between the PPD and OSF, $400,000+ a year, reducing other park activities like the long promised new softball fields, increased user fees and increased property taxes.
The city and county both lent InPlay and River Station 6 figures and both are bankrupt. Damon’s on the river is gone as is all retail and those who think a museum will bring business back need to do more research. As an example, what new business did the money losing ball park bring to its surroundings? And losers Gateway Center and One Tech Plaza.
Dream on dreamers, but do it with your own money. The rest of us will pay to visit when we want to. In the meantime wait for the library tax to hit, the new sewer to be built, #150 disaster long in the making and we have yet to see what the actual cost of the zoo wll be as operating costs rise and $5 million of the project never finished because they ran out of money. Plus guaranteed rises in utility costs and the still mystery of how the expanded Civic Center is doing. The old Jumers is now vacant and Vonachen Junction has been torn down, and safety has been compromised, local government debt rises, the city can’t afford to mantain the animal shelter, a new largely unfunded $48 million BelWood is deep in its planning, sprawl continues causing increases in service costs and property taxes remain constant even though homes are all being sold below, some far below, asking prices.
Even so, we are doing better than 3 other states, New York Michigan and California, in attracting and holding businesses.
Some say they don’t mind the sales tax and over half the population in Peoria do not pay property taxes. 70% of the kids in #150 are at or below poverty level. So we give them more “circuses” and the older people less safety. Wow, what compassion.
Merry Christmas
Peoria needs to offer incentives to residents who move into neighborhoods that need to be revitalized. Tax free building materials, financial incentive to turn rental homes into single family homes, tax exemption or a right off for x number of years. When people choose to move down town and to the main street corridor that is when you will see businesses open because there will be a solid customer base to support them. The idea that if we get some small businesses onto main street and downtown they will just magically be self sustaining is rediculous. Until the neighborhood demographics change there will be little positive development along main street, downtown or the riverfront.
Example: I bought a very run down former rental home. Peoria told me you have 48 hours to totally rebuild the chimney or your home will be condemned. Also you make to much money for any programs the city offers to residents purchasing or rehabilitating a home. Moral of the story the city only encourages low income and land lords to move into the main street corridor neighborhoods and downtown so why are we shocked when we dont see the utopia everyone envisions unfolding along main street.
Stephen Scanlan-Yerlyon writes, “…why are we shocked when we dont see the utopia everyone envisions unfolding along main street?”
How can there be a “Utopia” without a multi-million dollar [tax-payer funded] museum?!?!?!?
My god man! The answer is right in front of you!!!!!
Ummmmm my post had nothing to do with the museum. In fact I was stating that tax money be funneled into residential development instead. I would think you would be on board with tax money going to something other then the museum?
NV: you forgot to add …. – end sarcasm… to your post!
Stephen:
I agree that you deserve taxpayer dollars to fix up your house. In order to maximize the efficiency of your new entitlement program, we should eliminate the government waste in the middle and funnel you other people’s money directly. In that spirit, I would like to drop off a check for the chimney work on the “very run down” house you chose to purchase of your own volition. Just holler if anything else crops up and we’ll rush over more money that other people earned through their own hard work.
OK nontimendum so instead you would like to see your money funneled into projects like the hotel. What is your fix or idea to improve downtown or the main street corridor? I mean we could just continue as is and watch the inner city continue to decline and funnel money into development projects that are doomed to failure. Also nontimendum I dont need your money to repair my house, I work very hard for my own, what Im saying is that many cities across the country as a way to encourage a reverse white flight have set up programs to encourage people to move back into neighborhoods that have become blighted. Many people will not invest the time or money into a neighborhood that they see as a bad investment but with the right encouragement ie tax exemption etc..it can be a lure. Its not my new entitlement program its one that I have seen work in several communties that I have lived in. Im sure you live in the right part of town so it probablly dosnt matter right? I mean who cares about what goes on across town as long as its not across the street from you. I mean why attempt to fix the neighborhood when we can put in a Cub food and then cry on PeoriaChronicle and point fingers at the city council when it dosnt work. Typical Peoria mindset.
Stephen: Just trying to understand your point … “point fingers at the city council when it dosnt work. Typical Peoria mindset.”
If we are not supposed to point fingers at the city council …. then where should our pointing fingers be pointing?
I must have misread your comment. I thought you wrote that Peoria needed such a program and used your situation as an example. In fact, I’m sure you did.
You say you don’t need my money but I’m a microcosm of the collective us from whom you think money should be funneled to fix up other people’s houses. That would be an entilement program and it wouldn’t just redistribute my income, but also that of others who fall below you on the earnings scale. That’s the other problem (if you actually get okay with accepting other people’s money for your house). Here’s a wild idea: Personal responsibility, i.e., if people can’t afford to maintain their own house, they overbought and should move downscale.
You in fact have totally misread my comment one hundred percent. The financial incentives currently offered in the city of Peoria are based on income not on location. Meaning that the only people being encouraged to move into the core neighborhoods, with your tax money, are land lords and people that are of a low income bracket. Many cities offer tax incentives to try to encourage people to move back into neighborhoods that have been blighted. It has nothing to do with needing the money it is an incentive. I dont need the money to fix up my house but it would be a nice incentive and a way to draw people who otherise would not choose to live in a core neighborhood. The incentive has nothing to do with income it has to do with location. Is that easier for you to understand?
Yes, much easier thank you. You would redistribute my income by zip code rather than by actual need. East Bluff chimneys before South Side roofs, or just take enough to spiff up everyone’s house? I guess this is why we elect smarter people to do it for us. Left to our own selfish devices, we might not pay up to maintain enough other people’s houses.
I didnt come up with this program it has proven results in many communities across the country. No you target areas. The main street corridor has been a development project for years. You couple a residential development program with a main street corridor business development program and you may actually see results. Businesses will not move to main street until there are residential neighborhoods there that will support them. Ornamental lighting, wider sidewalks whatever until people with disposable incomes live in the neighborhoods surrounding main street businesses will continue to set up shop further out of the city. It has nothing to do with paying to fix other people’s houses the goal is to convince upwardly mobile people to move into neighborhoods that they would otherwise not. Its not set up to help need. The problem is need based programs. It is a tool to encourage people who already have the money to tip them into a less desirable neighborhood in exchange for the tax write off.
Left to our own selfish devices we would instead not worry about a problem until it was across the street.
Stephen: So would you support developers using $72,500 in HOME funds to rehab ahome to be sold for an income qualified family for a total project cost of $145,000 in the city of Peoria?
Included in this project, is the opportunity for the developer to earn $14,000 if the home sells for $72,500 to an income qualified family. Do you support that type of taxpayer funded rehab?
Ok I keep trying to spell this out and Im curious if you even read any part of my previous post. The program has nothing to do with income. The program is merely a tax incentive to encourage residents to purchase and rehab homes in targeted areas of the city.
The home owner purchases a home in what we will call a residential development district. That homeowner must live in the home it must be zoned or rezoned single family. The homeowner must show that they can afford to put x number of dollars into the property over x number of years and they basically enter into a grant contract. In Baltimore it was 35k over 5 years or something in that range. The homeowner then receives either money back at the end of the first year based on the down payment (example you buy it for 50k you get back 10k) or at the end of each year over the course of the agreed contract as a tax credit. I have also seen programs where you can get tax free building materials or also partial reimbursment on updates and remodels up to a certain amount (example exterior improvements up to 15k) . All the projects have to be inspected and approved and often there are specifics on building materials etc…that can be used.
I will state again the goal of a program such as this is to encourage residents to move into these districts by giving them a reward in the form of tax exemptions or financial reimbursement. As these districts become stable the need for these programs would deminish and the stated neighborhoods would see the type of developments many on this site state they want. Further as the properties were improved the tax base would increase making the lots more profitable in the long run for the city. An increase in property value would cause some land lords to either A. sell their properties because they can now double their investment (bought it for 20k can now sell for 40k) or B. seeing an opportunity to make money because their property is now desirable rent to better tenants at a higher rate.
There is no developer, there is no income qualifications. It is not a wealth redistribution tactic used by commie pinkos. It is not a developer driven program unless a developer agreed to make it his primary residence for up to 5 years then sure if he lives there and is paying for the improvements yeah go for it.
Your post is focusing on developers and income based qualifications which I specifically said I do not agree with or think are helpful.
Stephen:
I am asking about a different program — not what you suggested — sorry for any confusion. What I wrote above is what the city is currently doing with HOME Funds. I was just asking you if you supported this type of program IN ADDITION to the program you are advocating.
One of the additional challenges to the income incentive program you are championing, is that the challenges faced by D150 would seem to preclude perspective homeowners by the recent removal of neighborhood schools from some areas which need to be redeveloped. Does that make sense?
I am thinking that most people that programs like these would attract either A dont have children or B send their children to private schools.
Need based programs concentrate poverty and I think that they are a waste of tax money.
I would push for a program like the one Im describing on Main St and Downtown I dont know how well it would work in other areas.
Stephen:
I’m astonished that you actually think that tax dollars should be used to repair your chimney and entice yuppie neighbors. I believe you are desensitized to the squandering of tax dollars. Once upon a time in America, a person would have been ashamed to even suggest such a thing. Want yuppie neighbors? Move.
Merry Christmas.
First my chimney has been repaired for years with my own money. Your tax money is going for people who make less then 24k a year so they can buy a house they cant afford to maintain, but hey its probablly nowhere near where you live Im sure so who cares. Tax dollars are already being squandered on projects that are not showing results, Im suggesting one that has and would. Once upon a time? give me a break did you walk up hill in the snow barefoot to school? Every generation thinks the one before never would have done this or that. Yuppie neighbors maintain their homes, pay their bills and improve the areas they live. Who are your defending? Maybe I should move to your neighborhood
Merry Christmas
I wasn’t persecuting yuppies, just your belief that my tax dollars should buy some for you. Capisce?
By the by, I believe we are of the same “generation.” The fact that you presume fiscal rectitude and personal responsibility to be outdated notions from a bygone generation simply proves my point.
Fix your own chimney, entice your own neighbors, and improve your own corridors (are those kinda like streets?).
Thats the attitude. Downtown and Main Street will just fix themselves. Wow I wonder if anyone has tried that idea? Lets just roll the dice and bank that blighted neighborhoods will just turn around once everyone living in them just takes a little personal responsibility and gets out there and does whatever Americans gnerations before did!
Instead of yuppies your tax dollars will purchase properties for low income families that cant afford to maintain their properties or go to developers to rehab homes at a loss. That makes sense for someone championing fiscal responsiblity. I wonder when your neighborhood is threatened if you would have the same attitude?
My statement is that every generation thinks the one before it was more fiscally responsible, had it harder, did more with less whatever then the current. We can thank those generations for the mess most major cities are in now, including Peoria.
Stephen – I get what you are saying. I think it is a good idea to entice a different mix of people to come into the city and live. Clearly the mix that currently exists is not working so well for Peoria.
I, also agree, from working with individuals with housing “issues” in the past, that the goal of home ownership for some low income individuals is the wrong approach. I used to meet with many homeowners who simply did not have the capacity to earn sufficient income to main a home and/or manage the sometimes complex task of home repair.
well our house is undergoing home repair this month because of termite attack.:’-