I have writer’s block or something. I haven’t felt like writing about much of anything the past couple of days. Until I get inspired again, tell me what’s on your mind these days.
The strain of city growth revealed in snow report
If you’d like to read the Six Sigma report on how to improve Peoria’s snow removal process, here it is in PDF format (1.43M). To me, one of the more significant observations is this one:
The community has grown over 26 center lane miles in the past seven years and will be growing another ten center lane miles later this year due to new neighborhoods being developed. No consideration has been given for equipment or manpower needed to clear the streets.
This report is focused on snow removal, obviously, but I think the findings point to a more systemic problem in the city. That is that the city, when annexing land and expanding, has not adequately planned for or provided the additional resources needed for increased demand on public works, police, and fire service. Hence, all these basic services get stretched to the point where we read today about problems with fire personnel having enough manpower and equipment.
Peoria was about 39 square miles in 1970. By 2006, it had grown to over 48 square miles (a 23% increase) and will soon hit 50 as new land is annexed. During that time, police staffing grew by 24 people (9%, 263 to 287), fire staffing grew by 31 people (18%, 175 to 206), and public works staff actually has 13 fewer people (-9.7%, 134 to 121). I’m talking about total staff, not just officers, firefighters, and crew members; i.e., these numbers also include desk jobs and other positions.
Consider also that newer parts of town put a proportionately larger strain on city resources. From the snow report again:
Cul-de-sacs can take up to eight times longer to clear than a through street. At the current time, the city has over 900 cul-de-sacs and dead end streets, and new subdivisions are developing these in to their neighborhood planning processes.
Most of the older part of the city is on a grid system of streets — that is, through streets. By far the most cul-de-sacs are on the north end and in the expansion areas. Cul-de-sacs are not only a problem for public works, but fire and police as well, since access to those properties is limited and provide only one direction of approach.
Obviously, the city’s services need to be expanded to meet the needs of the growth areas. And given that annexation and development are supposed to be bringing in so much new income to the city, that should be no problem. Only the city is still strapped for funds — so much so that not only can we not add resources, we can barely maintain the status quo.
The city simply cannot sustain a pattern of growth that sees property values deteriorate and vacancies increase in the core of the city while simultaneously acquiring more and more land to the north. We have to increase the tax base in the southern part of the city.
Note to JSEB: We get it
Just a quick note to the Journal Star Editorial Board: We get it. You didn’t like Mayor Ardis’s comments in InterBusiness Issues. You want to defend your institution. Fair enough.
But now you’re going to write an editorial about it every day? Really? You don’t think that’s a little overkill or that it makes you look petty? And, more importantly, are there no more significant things happening in the world about which to editorialize?
Here’s my unsolicited advice: You’ve made your point. Now let it go.
Software piracy costs Morton Metalcraft, et. al., $1.43M
I heard this on WCBU this morning, but unfortunately, they don’t post all their news stories on their website, so I can’t link to it. Here’s the story from Huliq.com (emphasis added):
The Business Software Alliance (BSA) recently settled with manufacturing businesses totaling $1.43 million in settlements. The companies settled claims that they had unlicensed copies of Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft, SolidWorks and Symantec software on their computers. The settling companies included: American Spring Wire Corporation; AZ Automotive Corporation; Enpro Systems, Ltd; Interactive Health, Inc.; Morton Metalcraft, Co.; PDI; and Sure-Feed Engineering, Inc.
According to the story on WCBU, a current or former employee most likely tipped off BSA. I know someone who works at Morton Metalcraft. You don’t think…? Nah, it probably wasn’t him.
Biggest underreported news story: China’s anti-satellite weapons
Think about how much we in the United States use, if not depend on, satellite technology.
I’m not just talking about Dish Network. There are civilian and and military applications for satellites: communication, navigation, reconnaissance, etc. Think about GPS, smart bombs, satellite phones, weather maps, etc. It’s probably safe to say that satellite technology impacts us every day.
Now read this from the latest issue of The New Atlantis:
On January 11, 2007, a missile was launched from Chinese territory. It arced upwards into space to an altitude of about 537 miles, where it slammed directly into its target, an obsolete Chinese weather satellite. The target was destroyed, reportedly producing some 900 trackable pieces of space debris in orbits from 125 miles to about 2,300 miles and resulting in an increase of 10 percent in the total amount of manmade debris in orbit.
This demonstration of an anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) was just the latest in a series of tests of China’s space weapons program, and was a warning sign the United States should take very seriously. […]
“Far more than any other country, the U.S. depends on space for national and tactical intelligence, military operations, and civil and commercial benefits,†as Robert L. Butterworth, president of the space consultancy Aries Analytics, recently put it. This “provides a clear incentive for attacking American spacecraft.†Such an attack on American satellites would not have to be very extensive to be devastating—as long as it were well-planned. “Even a small-scale anti-satellite attack in a crisis against fifty U.S. satellites (assuming a mix of targeted military reconnaissance, navigation satellites, and communication satellites) could have a catastrophic effect not only on U.S. military forces, but [on] the U.S. civilian economy,†according to a recent report by China analyst Michael Pillsbury.
Chilling, isn’t it? The U.S. is, in fact, taking the threat seriously. Just today DefenseNews.com reports:
Five months after the Chinese proved they could destroy a satellite in orbit, U.S. lawmakers are responding with a surge in spending on Pentagon space programs aimed at protecting U.S. satellites. […]
“The Chinese anti-satellite test in early 2007 highlighted the vulnerability of our space assets,†House members said in a report on the 2008 Defense Authorization Act they passed in May.
News of China’s weaponization of space gets worse. The missile that was launched in January isn’t the only anti-satellite weapon at China’s disposal. They also have ground-based lasers that can jam or blind U.S. reconnaissance satellites, and there’s evidence they may be investing in space-based anti-satellite weapons.
No one is suggesting the Chinese are planning to take over the U.S. (yet, at least), but China’s neighbors are worried. There is speculation that jamming reconnaissance satellites could be a tactic China could use in an effort to take over Taiwan (to keep other countries, notably the U.S., in the dark until the takeover is well underway or even completed), and India is a bit wary of what these new weapons tests portend for the region, too. Such technology could act as a deterrent to any international action against China should they decide to, shall we say, annex some land.
Of course, the Chinese are outspoken opponents of the weaponization of space. That’s not surprising. What was it Sun Tzu said? “All warfare is based on deception.” Aviation Week reported on May 24:
Gen. Kevin Chilton, the head of U.S. Air Force Space Command […] said Chinese calls for a new space treaty even after their ASAT test were the definition of chutzpah. “The contradictions between China’s statements and its actions raise legitimate questions about the credibility of their declaratory policies, statements and security commitments,” said Air Force Maj. Gen. James Armor Jr., director of the National Security Space Office.
Don’t kid yourself — this is no small incident. It’s surprising to me that it hasn’t been more widely reported. I found one or two references to it in the Chicago Tribune, but none in the Journal Star’s archives. This could be the start of a significant arms race, although U.S. officials would be quick to pooh-pooh that idea.
Well, I don’t know a whole lot about the military, but I do know there is a strategic advantage to holding the high ground, and there’s no higher “high ground” than space. We can’t afford to let China hold it. So, maybe some don’t want to call it an emotionally-charged term like “arms race,” but I say we call a spade a spade. We might want to start rethinking that $76 billion trade deficit with China, too, while we’re at it.
美夢. (Sweet dreams.)
Open thread
I just don’t have anything to say today. So I’ll let you do the talking. Have at it!
Any township law experts out there?
Here’s an arcane legal question for you. In my last post, I mentioned that George Jacob resides in Medina Township, not Peoria Township. That got me thinking. How can Jacob be a Peoria Township trustee if he lives in Medina Township?
It’s kind of confusing, because the state law is unclear to me. The Town of the City of Peoria falls under the “Township within a city” section of the state’s Township Code (60 ILCS):
(60 ILCS 1/15‑50)
Sec. 15‑50. Powers exercised by city council. All the powers vested in the township described in Section 15‑45, including all the powers now vested by law in the highway commissioners of the township and in the township board of the township, shall be exercised by the city council.
And it says something similar under the “Township board” section:
(60 ILCS 1/80‑5)
Sec. 80‑5. Township board membership; officers.
(b) In towns organized under Article 15, all the powers vested by law in the township board shall be exercised by the city council.
So that’s pretty straightforward. However, elsewhere in the code there is a section called “Qualification and tenure of township officers,” and it says:
(60 ILCS 1/55‑5)
Sec. 55‑5. Legal voter and resident. No person is eligible to hold any office unless he or she is a legal voter and has been a resident of the township for one year.
So, do the first two sections I quoted trump the last one? Or does the qualification section apply to members of the city council in a “Township within a city”? The issue is this: If there’s no residency requirement, then you could potentially have a situation where six members of the council and the mayor could end up living in the City, but not the Town, of Peoria. That would mean a majority of the Peoria Township trustees wouldn’t even be Peoria Township residents. That would be a strange form of representative government, wouldn’t it?
Someone may well ask, so what? What’s the big deal? Well, it’s not really a big deal, I guess, in terms of money. The township collects only 0.13659% of property tax bills, which comes out to about $38.70 for the owner of a $100,000 home. But then, if you were to have a majority of trustees someday with no personal stake in the township, that cost could go up. Basically, it’s a question of compliance with state law and, ultimately, the principle of appropriate representation of taxpayers.
One more thing: I have nothing against George Jacob. I supported him in the at-large election and I still support him for city council. I think he’s doing good work. This isn’t a personal attack, just a question about how the law works and whether this practice is in the best interests of the citizens or not.
Cheaper taxes another perk of living in North Peoria
If you live in the older part of Peoria like I do (Uplands neighborhood, near Bradley), your total property tax rate is 8.35885%. If you live where fifth-district councilman Patrick Nichting lives (Sleepy Hollow Rd., north of Route 6, near the corner of Knoxville and Mossville Rd.), your total property tax rate is only 7.69782%. And if you live where at-large councilman George Jacob lives (Dana Dr., north of Route 6, off Wilhelm Rd.), your total property tax is 8.02308%. (Note: I picked Nichting and Jacob merely for descriptive purposes and because, as public figures, their addresses are already widely published.)
Why the differences? It’s because different taxing bodies have different borders. Both Nichting and Jacob live outside the Greater Peoria Airport Authority’s taxing district, saving them 0.24087% on their tax bills. They also both live in Dunlap’s school district (4.0644%) instead of District 150 (4.48456%), saving them another 0.42016%.
Jacob’s rate is a little higher than Nichting’s because Jacob lives in Medina Township instead of Peoria Township. Medina assesses 0.13019% for township government expenses plus 0.33166% for road and bridge maintenance. That totals 0.46185% for living in Medina Township versus only 0.13659% for Peoria Township.
So how does that translate into dollars and cents? Well, a $200,000 owner-occupied home in the Uplands will cost you $407.64 a year more in taxes than a $200,000 home in Nichting’s neighborhood, and $207.06 more than a $200,000 home in Jacob’s neighborhood. That’s not chump change.
On May 29, the Illinois legislature passed Senate Bill 263 which makes the airport authority’s boundaries coterminous with Peoria County. Once the governor signs that into law, those in northern Peoria will have to begin paying their share of the airport’s expenses. Since the levy will stay the same, but be spread among more taxpayers, those currently paying the airport authority’s tax will actually see their rates go down a little.
That will leave the 200-pound gorilla — school taxes — as the biggest difference between living out north or closer to the center of the city, tax-wise. In the older part of the city, you can find a wide range of housing prices, but the farther you go north, the more homogeneous the housing prices become. Pretty soon, you’re in an area where the lowest-priced housing is out of many people’s price range.
Those who can afford $200,000+ houses out north are rewarded with lower taxes and better schools. Meanwhile, those who can only afford a home costing less than $180,000 have few if any options out north. In Peoria, their choices are all within District 150, which means they get relatively poorer schools (based on Illinois Report Card info) and proportionately higher taxes.
I’ve suggested before that school districts 150 and 323 be combined. I still think that’s a good idea. But there’s something else that needs to be done: new neighborhood developments in northern Peoria need to have a broader range of housing prices. Instead of building homogeneous neighborhoods where every house is $280,000, new neighborhoods should include a diversity of housing prices. I’m not talking about low-income housing (that’s a different topic); I’m just talking about a range of, say, $120,000 to $250,000 homes being built within the same neighborhood.
All of these issues intertwine. Tax disparity, school disparity, and housing disparity all converge to make Peoria a tale of two cities. Things need to change, because our current trajectory is unsustainable. Some people actually believe that it’s desirable for the city to consider South Peoria the place for the violent and criminal element to live, the East Bluff to be a buffer, and the northern part of the city to be the “safe” part of Peoria. Folks, this is not healthy thinking. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
We can dream more inspiring dreams for Peoria. Let’s set higher goals for our city. Let’s not abandon our friends and neighbors on the south side out of fear and ignorance. Let’s not build neighborhoods that keep people out, but rather invite people in. Let’s make all of Peoria a great place to live.
Museum not getting smaller… well, maybe
With respect to the size of the museum, this has changed over time. It’s gotten bigger; it’s gotten slightly smaller as we’ve continued to look at many different options.
-Jim Vergon, Lakeview Museum Board Chairman
So, the Peoria Riverfront Museum might be bigger or it might be smaller, but for sure there will be some “minor changes” because of “rising construction costs,” according to the Journal Star. Considering I’ve never seen a project ever get bigger due to rising construction costs, I’m going to guess Vergon’s quote is code for “it’s going to be smaller, just not as small as has been rumored.” I appreciate the museum partners’ positive outlook, but do they really expect us to believe this:
Vergon said that new program is “going well,” and [Lakeview Spokeswoman Kathleen] Woith adds fundraising has nothing to do with design changes.
Really? You don’t think delays in fundraising had anything to do with construction cost estimates going up, prompting “minor changes” in the design? They’re completely unrelated?
Woith also states that the public fundraising campaign doesn’t start until next year. If the “Circle the Square” campaign is any indication, I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were Lakeview.
Last June, Jim Ardis and seven other mayors committed to raise $16 million in a year and raise grassroots support for the museum. At that time (6/27/06), the Journal Star reported that “the museum group has raised […] about $16 million in private funds and more than $5 million in a combination of state, federal and local dollars.”
Today, almost a year later, the Journal Star says that, as of February, public dollars total “only $6 million in commitments” and “[p]rivate donations total $18 million, or a little more than half the $35 million being sought.” That means the mayors’ efforts to raise $16 million in a year has so far fallen about $14 million short of the goal.
I hope someone with the museum partners at some point is brave enough to take an honest assessment of why there’s not more excitement about this project. The stalled fundraising should be a big hint that something’s not resonating with the public, or at least that the cost and scope of the project is just too big.
Radiant City
Now here’s a movie I’d like to see, but it’s only playing in New York and at film festivals.
Not long ago, Willow Knolls cinemas played “Who Killed the Electric Car,” which was also a documentary. Maybe they could bring this movie in, too? I wonder if they take requests.