Elections, Peoria Public Schools

School Board: Akeson, Parker

11 Comments

Beth AkesonIt will come as no surprise to anyone that I’m endorsing Beth Akeson for the District 150 Board of Education. I serve with her on the Heart of Peoria Commission and have seen first-hand how she works with a team of people toward a common goal.

Akeson does a lot of research. She’s relentless in educating herself about topics on which she needs to make a decision both through written materials and personal interviews. She is committed to getting public input before making decisions. That’s important, since the current school board has a habit of making poorly-researched decisions first and then getting public “input,” which they summarily ignore anyway.

Perhaps most importantly, she believes we need to raise the expectations of children in our education system. It’s not enough for the district to make “adequate yearly progress” its goal. District 150 needs to aim higher than minimum standards. And that’s what being on the school board is all about — the children. The school board should be doing everything it can to facilitate educational excellence (not just adequacy) for all students.

I’m confident Beth Akeson will be an excellent addition to the school board. She’s strongly endorsed.

Rachael ParkerRachael Parker works for the City of Peoria in economic development. While we all recognize that the city and the school board are two completely separate governmental entities, they are nevertheless interdependent. They both draw from the same tax base, so the health and success of each body depends in large part on the health and success of the other. With that backdrop, I believe Parker would be an asset on the school board to help foster understanding between the two bodies.

Parker is also a proponent of inclusive decision-making. It’s sad that the school board has such a bad reputation in the area of listening to the community that this is such a big campaign issue. But the fact is, it is a big issue. We need people on the board who will really listen to the people whom they are representing and treat them with respect. Parker will do that.

She’s also a proponent of vocational education. I believe vocational education is important whether students are able to go to college or not. It teaches job skills and attitudes that students can begin using immediately in their summer jobs as they’re just beginning to enter the workforce and build their resume.

Finally, Parker (as well as Akeson, for that matter) understands that the Board of Education sets policy, vision, and direction for the school district and then lets the superintendent carry it out. Currently, the board appears to be led by Mr. Hinton. Getting the chain of command righted and having the school board do the leading will do wonders for improving District 150.

The rest of the candidates

It was a little tough coming up with endorsements since there was such a good pool of candidates this time around. It was a toss-up for me between Parker and Bill O’Brien, but I gave the edge to Parker for her city connections and because she would bring more diversity to the board. I feel that Linda Butler is what I would call a “status-quo” candidate. That is, I feel her platform is in line with what the current school board is already doing. She’s the only candidate who has continued to support the Glen Oak Park site for an East Bluff school.

As for the embattled Alicia Butler, I’ve maintained all along that if the controversy surrounding her honesty and integrity were not cleared up before the election, then I can’t in good conscience endorse her. If she is able to clear her name after the election, she can always run again the next time around. But it’s too much for me to believe that this is some sort of vast political conspiracy involving both the Journal Star and Bradley University to remove her from the board and ruin her life.

There’s a logical principle that the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one, and in this case the simplest explanation is that Alicia fudged her resume and is trying to cover up her mistake. I’ll give her credit for chutzpah, but I’m afraid I can’t give her my vote.

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections, Ray LaHood

Dan Irving picks up high-profile endorsements

12 Comments

Dan IrvingCity Council candidate Dan Irving held a press conference today to announce several endorsements of his campaign. Announcing their endorsements in person were Congressman Ray LaHood, Mayor Jim Ardis, and fifth-district councilman Patrick Nichting. Also announcing endorsements but unable to attend the news conference were third-district councilman Bob Manning and fourth-district councilman Bill Spears.

Congressman LaHood took advantage of early voting and cast his ballot this morning at 9:30. He said he was giving his support because of Irving’s business experience, involvement in the community, and his perspective as part of the “younger generation.” Ray said he was endorsing candidates for city council because he lives in Peoria, pays taxes in Peoria, and thus he cares about what happens in Peoria. LaHood disclosed that he also voted for George Jacob, Ryan Spain, Gale Thetford, and Eric Turner. LaHood voted early because he will be returning to Washington this weekend.

Mayor Ardis feels that Dan has a good background on the issues the city is facing and that he will be a good addition to the “team.” Ardis specifically mentioned that he agreed with Irving’s platform on the issues of crime (supports saturation patrols, surveillance cameras), strengthening neighborhoods, and promoting economic development. Ardis also endorses George Jacob, Ryan Spain, and Eric Turner.

Councilman Nichting believes that Irving has strong leadership skills that will “progress Peoria forward,” and generally agreed with the mayor’s reasons for endorsing him. Nichting also endorses George Jacob and Eric Turner.

Peoria Police

Settingsgaard supports officer in Beachler incident

28 Comments

ChiefPeoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard held a press conference yesterday to address the controversy surrounding Terry Beachler.

I didn’t know about the press conference, so I didn’t get to hear all of the Chief’s comments in person. But it’s a hot topic in the local media, so I saw many quotes on the news. Here’s a compilation of all the Chief’s comments I could find:

“Terry [Beachler] had every intention of delaying and stalling this officer and, I believe, goading the officer into anger. There’s no question in my mind he knew it was the police.”

“In this case, I’ll give the station credit. They didn’t sell the juvenile cigarettes.”

“Terry, I believe had a mindset to play games, which he did. And I think that’s evidenced by the fact he walked in with a recording device pre-set.”

“The story that appears to be out there. The angle and the spin on it I believe is very inaccurate.”

“[Officer] Scott Jordan held his professionalism. He did raise his voice and he was clearly agitated but I think he had a good reason in this case and I think he acted with great restraint.”

“When it becomes clear it’s part of a police operation, you get the property back and you return it.”

On the one hand, I think it’s commendable that the police chief would defend his officers. If you’re in law enforcement, you want to have a chief that’s going to back you up. I think in general we want a police chief that defends the actions of his officers when he feels they were in the right.

On the other hand, I don’t think the officer was in the right in this case. Before I go into why, I think we have to recognize that the audio recording catches a moment in time, and we can’t draw conclusions about this officer’s overall conduct nor the police department’s conduct from this one episode. So, I would have to part ways with several commenters who, I believe, are making some rather hasty generalizations about the police in this city. I just want to speak about this singular incident.

And in this incident, I think the officer was clearly angry from the beginning of the exchange. Did you look at the time on that recording? From the time Beachler walked in the station to the time he handed over the I.D. card, it was about four minutes. Granted, the officer had been waiting for twenty minutes for Terry to drive in from Mossville, but one could hardly characterize that as “playing games” or “stalling.” It takes 20 minutes to drive in from Mossville. There’s nothing Terry or the officer can do about that.

On the recording, Terry asked for identification from the officer. Whether or not Terry knew Officer Jordan is immaterial. He was completely within his legal rights to ask this officer for identification. Consider the fact that this officer was not in uniform and driving an unmarked vehicle, and the police had just finished trying to trick Terry’s employee into committing a crime. I’m not going to criticize Terry for wanting identification from the officer before handing over evidence of a crime.

Immediately, the officer escalated the confrontation and started threatening Terry.

The officer demands the I.D. back, Terry says it will be just a second while he gets some information, and the officer immediately responds with a raised voice, “In another second, I’m calling a marked car and making an arrest….” That escalation transpired within twenty seconds. Twenty seconds, people. How do you “goad” an officer into anger in twenty seconds by saying, “I need to get some information”?

From there it was nothing but yelling and threatening, all the while Terry is trying to open the safe and get the I.D. back for the officer. And again, it only took him four minutes total. I hardly consider four minutes “delaying” or “stalling.” As far as “goading” someone to anger, I think it’s clear who was goading whom, and it wasn’t Terry goading the police officer. The police officer was already angry.

Beachler gave the I.D. back within four minutes, and all he asked for was the officer’s badge/I.D. before he would return it. The rest of the time was spent opening the safe. What exactly was the sense of urgency here? Why was four minutes not fast enough? How was asking for the officer’s badge number considered “obstruction”? If you’re not moving as fast the officer thinks you should be moving, you’re obstructing him?

Even if we accept the premise that Terry was being a jerk and “playing games,” that is still no justification for the officer’s actions. Twenty seconds is too short of a fuse for an officer to lose his temper when no physical or verbal aggression has been displayed.

I like the chief, and I mean no disrespect to him or the officers under him, but I must disagree with his assessment of this incident. Officer Jordan did not act professionally, he did not act with restraint, he was not goaded into anger. He was angry from the beginning, he escalated the situation without warrant, he was impatient, he abused his authority, and he made an arrest just to take out his frustration on Terry.

I don’t believe the officer should be fired just because of this one incident, but he should be reprimanded.

Uncategorized

May 1 event to focus on sustainable development

2 Comments

Greg Woith from Counseling & Family Services sent me this e-mail today (emphasis mine):

CJ: I can offer free tickets to the first 10 people who request them and say they saw it on your blog! This conference will address many of the kinds of issues that you discuss.

That’s a nice offer — nice enough that I’ll be happy to provide some free advertising for the event. 🙂

PEORIA-April 12, 2007-One of the world’s “top management gurus”, Peter Senge, will be the keynote speaker at a conference in Peoria May 1 that will focus on building a healthy environment, healthy communities and healthy families.

The event, led by Counseling & Family Services, is a multi-sector collaboration between business, government and civil society to introduce the concept of sustainable development in the Peoria area. Panelists and speakers representing Fortune Magazine, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Peoria’s City Council, World Wildlife Fund, Caterpillar Inc. and more will discuss how we can best prepare for the future of our community using the concept of sustainable development.

Sustainable development is the process of balancing of the environment, economy and social responsibility to improve the quality of life for residents now and into the future.

“Building a Healthy, Sustainable Community: Planet, Places, People” will be held May 1 in the new ballroom at the Peoria Civic Center from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Admission is $20 for non-students and $10 for students. Tickets can be purchased by contacting Counseling & Family Services at 676-2400.

They keynote speaker is Dr. Peter Senge, author of the widely acclaimed “The Fifth Discipline.” Dr. Senge, based at M.I.T., lectures extensively around the world. He stresses that vision, purpose, reflectiveness and systems thinking are essential if organizations are to realize their potentials. The Journal of Business Strategy named Senge one of the 24 people who have had the greatest influence on business strategy over the last 100 years. The Financial Times and Business Week both named him one of the world’s “top management gurus.”

Marc Gunther, a senior writer for Fortune Magazine, columnist for CNNMoney.com and author, will moderate a panel of local thought leaders to discuss sustainable development and how this important concept relates to the planet, people and the Peoria area. He is a gifted moderator who has appeared on NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN and NPR.

“It is critical that we recognize the interdependence of the environment, economy, and social responsibility,” said Doug Allan, executive director of Counseling & Family Services. “We are in the business of helping people overcome problems and improve their quality of life, and ultimately the quality of life in our communities. It is important for us to take a leadership role in bringing the community together to explore ways to sustain our environment, our businesses and our people.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Greg Woith
Resource Development Director
Counseling & Family Services
309 676-2400

Sounds like an interesting event. I like to watch things like this on C-SPAN. It would be pretty cool to attend one live. Good luck snagging one of those ten free tickets (remember to tell them you saw it on the Peoria Chronicle)! Thanks to Greg Woith for the offer.

City of Peoria, Crime, Peoria Police

Terry Beachler arrested despite following the law

119 Comments

PoliceTerry Beachler is danged if he does and danged if he doesn’t.

After his business, Beachler’s Servicecenter at the corner of University and War Memorial Drive was cited and paid a hefty fine twice for selling cigarettes to minors, Terry initiated a new policy:

If an under age person attempts to make a tobacco purchase, we ask for the i.d. If the i.d. indicates that the person is under age, our employees are instructed to place the i.d. in our drop safe. Employees have no access to the drop safe. The next morning we call the police, and if appropriate, the parents to take further action. As we have good evidence, we felt that it is not necessary to call police immediately. We use the drop safe so that a person will not return and try to obtain the i.d. This provides protection for our employee.

It seems to me that this is just the kind of policy that the police would want retailers to have. By confiscating the ID and holding it to the next day, the perpetrator can’t just hit up the next gas station for cigarettes and the next one after that until he finds one that will sell cancer sticks to him.

But in this case, the police — who have already ticketed his business twice for violating this law — were not happy when he followed the law either. Here’s Terry’s account of the incident (emphasis mine):

On March 26, 2007 an under age person made an attempt to illegally purchase a pack of cigarettes. The cashier on duty was given the i.d upon request. Upon examination it was determined that the person was under age and the i.d. was dropped in the safe. The person left. A very short time later a person entered belligerently demanding the i.d. back. A badge was flashed.

I received a call from the cashier on duty indicating that there had been a sting operation and they wanted the i.d. back. I suggested that they return in the morning and I would provide the i.d and left the phone call. Shortly after, I received a second call indicating that the employee would be arrested for theft if the i.d. was not returned. I was near Mossville and returned to the business, about a twenty minute ride. Upon arrival, I turned my digital recorder on. I noted an SUV idling at the south end of our building with a person inside. I recorded the license number and entered the building through the back door. I asked the cashier on duty who needed help. He pointed me to a person outside with big muscles, a buzz haircut and an old shirt. I asked how I could help. The person demanded the i.d. back. I invited him to the office and asked for i.d. He presented a business card. I asked to see a badge which he flashed. I asked again to take a closer look at the badge and established that he was a police officer. He was demanding and argumentative. I went to the drop safe. I seldom open the safe as certain employees do the cash handling procedures. I worked with the combination and the safe was opened after a 2 minute time delay. Occasionally a customer will leave a credit card here or a driver’s license after an i.d. check for check cashing or age verification. Employees are required to drop the item which was left in the safe. We then contact the customer. I found an i.d. in the safe and was examining it to be sure it was the correct i.d. and to determine the age of the person presenting the i.d. The officer made an attempt to grab the i.d from my hand. I reacted to the sudden move and did not release the i.d. At that time he announced that I was under arrest. I was handcuffed and taken to the county jail and released a couple of hours later.

Here’s the digital recording of the incident:

[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/Beachler.mp3]

What are we to make of this? In my opinion, I think the officer should have waited until the next day to get the I.D. back. If the police want to do a sting operation, that’s fine. But when a business follows the law — which I assume is the outcome the police are wanting — the least the police can do is cooperate with the business’s policies and not drag a business owner in at the officer’s convenience and then arrest the business owner because he was perturbed at being ordered to come in and return an I.D. like he was doing something criminal. If you were arrested as well for some reason, there’s more in the article which are related to laws and bonds for you to read about.

Now, I’m not out to bash the police here. I want them to be out there patrolling our neighborhoods and fighting crime, and stopping underage sales of cigarettes and alcohol is a legitimate police action. But when they find that a business is cracking down on this kind of crime like they’re supposed to, it’s not right for the police to inconvenience the store owner just because the employees didn’t fall for the sting. They should rather applaud the business and hold them up as an example.

In another case of “danged if you do, danged if you don’t,” Beachler’s recording of the confrontation is actually illegal in Illinois. Illinois law prohibits recording a conversation — even in person — without the consent of all parties involved. Naturally, that law doesn’t apply to the police. So if the tables had been reversed and Terry were the one being belligerent and the officer was secretly recording it, that would have been okay.

In the end, all charges were dropped. But, as Terry pointed out, “Ultimately, valuable police resources [were] squandered” on this incident. If the police want business owners to cooperate with the police, the police need to cooperate with the business owners, especially when their only “crime” is following the law.

Kellar Branch

Legal sparring continues before STB

9 Comments

Kellar Branch RailroadIn the never-ending Kellar Branch saga, there’s a legal battle going on before the Surface Transportation Board (STB).

When the STB reopened the adverse discontinuance proceeding (this is the one on whether Pioneer should be kicked off the Kellar Branch in favor of CIRY), it asked for further evidence from the City of Peoria, the Village of Peoria Heights, and Central Illinois Railroad Company (CIRY) by February 12, and a reply from Pioneer Industrial Railway (PIRY) and Carver Lumber by March 5. The City asked for an extension of time which the STB granted, moving the deadlines back to February 22 for the Cities/CIRY and March 15 for PIRY/Carver.

Well, everyone played by the rules and got their legal arguments in by the required dates. But since March 15, there have been all kinds of extra filings. Friends of the Rock Island Trail sent a pro-trail filing that was so erroneous and riddled with mistakes that it was comical, and Peoria Heights sent a letter stating the results of their consensus to continue supporting the trail (which I know they did conscientiously, but technically is against the rules).

Then, on April 4, the Cities/CIRY filed a reply to Pioneer’s reply. This is rarely allowed in STB proceedings, and requires that permission be granted by the STB for such a reply to be included in the record. The Cities/CIRY didn’t wait for permission. They filed their request for permission and their reply to PIRY/Carver’s reply on the same day.

The Cities/CIRY claim that “[b]ecause the responses filed by PIRY and Carver, respectively, contain numerous half truths and factual distortions, the Joint Parties are compelled to seek the Board’s leave to submit this Joint Reply.” PIRY/Carver countered that this filing:

…is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt by the Joint Parties [Cities/CIRY] to submit argument and evidence that was previously available to them but was not submitted in their February 22nd comments and is only now being introduced in order to further delay this proceeding and compensate for the paltry and one-dimensional filings that they have previously offered in this proceeding.

Pioneer goes on to accuse the Cities of deliberately delaying the proceeding in hopes that Carver Lumber will lose enough money that they have to close their Peoria facility, which would remove the “obstacle” to the Cities’ plans to turn the Kellar Branch into a walking path. They ask the Board to simply deny the request to add to the record now that all the deadlines are past.

If the Board decides to allow the “reply to a reply,” Pioneer asks for 20 days to offer their response to the accusations made by the Cities/CIRY. That seems reasonable, since it was clearly the STB’s intent to provide equal time for both sides.

I just find it ironic that Pioneer is always painted as the villain that doesn’t follow the rules and obstructs things, and yet through this proceeding, they’ve managed to meet all their deadlines and it’s the Cities and other trail proponents that continue to flaunt the STB’s procedures. I suppose that’s to be expected, since they have no respect for the STB or the importance of interstate rail service in general.

City Council, City of Peoria, Form-Based Code

Council Roundup: Land Development Code

4 Comments

Within the Land Development Code (LDC) there are four “form districts.” Those districts are the Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, the West Main Corridor, the Prospect Road Corridor, and the Warehouse District. These four areas underwent intense study and a customized form-based code was created for each district. Each area is essentially pre-planned by citizens through the charrette process and codified by the city’s consultants, Farrell Madden Associates.

Last night the City Council adopted the form-based codes for the four form districts (this includes the regulating plan and illustrative plan for each).

However, the LDC code for the rest of the Heart of Peoria Plan Area outside those form districts — i.e., the vast majority of the Heart of Peoria Plan Area — is not ready for prime time yet. The council tabled it until staff can make some revisions.

Here’s the issue. The portion of the LDC outside of the form districts (we’ll call this area a “base district” to distinguish it from a “form district”) was not subjected to the kind of intense study that the form districts were. The form districts are kind of like a new house — it’s a code built from scratch to the citizens’ specifications. The base district is like an old house with a little remodeling work done on it to bring it up to code — it’s basically our existing zoning ordinance with some modifications to make it more “new urbanist” (such as allowances for mixed use, urban setback regulations, etc.).

To continue the metaphor, the council wasn’t happy with the old house simply being brought up to code. They know we can’t afford to develop full-fledged form-based codes in all 8,000 acres of the Heart of Peoria Plan area, but they nevertheless felt the base districts did not go far enough. Specifically, the base district regulations don’t address the problems that are hindering reinvestment in older neighborhoods.

Gary Sandberg gives a good example. If you want to build a garage, the code says you can build one that is similar to other garages in your neighborhood. There’s a reason for this: you want to have some amount of consistency in your neighborhood. If everyone on your block has detached garages with alley access, you don’t want one house to have an attached garage with street access — it would be totally out of character for the neighborhood.

The problem is, you may live in a neighborhood where they used to have garages, but almost all of them have been razed, so now there are essentially no garages. Then what? Can you not have a garage? Or what if all the garages in your part of town are one-stall, and you want a two-stall garage? Are we going to make people build a one-stall garage or have to get variance to built a two-stall? The danger is that if there are too many hoops to jump through — if there are too many places for the City to tell people “no” — it discourages reinvestment.

There are also some potential conflicts with existing ordinances. Sandberg (who apparently has all city ordinances memorized) pointed out that the street ordinance prohibits private development within 100 feet of the centerline of a thoroughfare, yet the LDC allows (and in some cases requires) infill commercial development be built right up to the sidewalk. That needs to be reconciled.

I’m worried that the LDC is going to languish. It was not the intent of the council to have it languish, but we have to face reality. A major revision of the city’s comprehensive plan is coming up, and that’s the next big project on which Planning & Growth is going to focus. There’s no budget left for our consultants to revise the LDC. So staff is going to have to do the work, but when? Some council members believe staff should be able to do both. I don’t know enough about how they’re organized or what their work load is to make that determination.

But I do know that it would be a real shame and an excuse for further cynicism about local government if the LDC were left on the table too long or, worse, forgotten. Somehow this needs to stay on the front burner and get done soon before it loses momentum.

Arbor District, Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

Houses fall in Arbor District

20 Comments

PeoriaIllinoisan has been keeping an eye on Maplewood, and there’s progressively less and less to look at. Bradley didn’t waste any time before starting in on the demolition. The definition of progress around here is tearing down century-old homes in a stable neighborhood to make way for a parking deck. Bradley will wither and die without this parking deck, so it’s a fair trade, they say.

Last night the City Council unanimously approved replacing the arbor at Rebecca and Main. Second district councilwoman Barbara Van Auken said that this was to show that the City is not only committed to the success of its institutions, but also committed to strong neighborhoods. I’m happy they’re getting their arbor rebuilt, but comparing this gesture to what the City allowed Bradley to do is unbalanced, to say the least. Is replacement of the arbor worth a whole block of houses plus the conversion of dozens of remaining properties to rental homes? My guess is the neighborhood would rather forget the arbor and have Maplewood back.

Incidentally, I found out that material salvaged from those homes will be resold through Habitat for Humanity’s ReStore.

City Council, City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan

Who will decide how Peoria looks?

21 Comments

One of the disagreements regarding the Land Development Code is over the regulations for Knoxville Avenue from Pennsylvania on the south to Virginia on the north.

The original Land Development Code (LDC), as written by the consultants based on community input, called for buildings to be set back from the road no farther than 80 feet. They could be right up to the sidewalk, but they couldn’t be set back more than 80 feet. If you’re like me and you can’t envision 80 feet easily, think of it this way: that’s enough space to put a parking lot with two rows of parking spaces and a drive aisle between them.

A local commercial real estate developer, Dave Maloof, wants there to be no maximum setback. This is understandable, considering his line of work. He wants to combine parcels and build strip malls with large surface parking lots in front. That’s what he does.

As a “compromise,” the city staff is recommending that we create a special “thoroughfare” district along Knoxville that would allow 150-foot setbacks. They essentially bought into Mr. Maloof’s contention that the lots/parcels along that stretch of Knoxville are too deep to justify the shorter setback. It was pointed out that parking could/should be put behind the businesses, but that was rejected amidst a plethora of excuses, such as, “no one will park back there,” and “retail shops can’t have two public entrances” (which is silly; they do at Grand Prairie). The Planning Commission agreed with the city staff, but the Zoning and Heart of Peoria commissions believe the maximum setback should stay at 80 feet.

I think the question is more basic. What we have to ask ourselves is, who will decide how Peoria looks? A small group of developers, or the City through community input? The Heart of Peoria Commission thinks it ought to be the City based on community input, and has said so in a letter than went to all Council representatives.

To demonstrate the negative impact large setbacks can have, Heart of Peoria commissioner Geoff Smith explained:

One of the best examples of the destructive effect that unregulated development and planning have on our local environment can be seen in the corridor of University Ave. between Forrest Hill and War Memorial Drive. This is a mean section of street space when considered in the context of the standards set forth in the Land Development Code. There is very little planting or green space in any proximity of the street edge. Traffic speeds by, and drivers have unlimited access to a huge expanse of paved parking areas immediately adjacent to the street. Pedestrians are wise to stay off what little remains of the crumbling and discontinuous sidewalks.

Another negative effect on the urban environment of areas like University Ave. is the impact that development with deep setbacks has on adjacent neighborhoods. The buildings that are pushed to the very back of the site have all of their service, delivery, trash collection, and utility areas immediately adjacent to the neighborhoods behind these developments. Garbage, odors, and other trash are just across a fence or alley from the rear of residential properties. Bright exterior lighting on buildings at night often provides direct glare to adjacent properties.

We don’t want another University street. Our city can look so much better than that. For too many years, we’ve been bending over backwards to adjust our city’s vision to developers’ visions. And what has it gotten us? Unrestrained prosperity? A city core that is considered a destination? Beautiful public places? No, no, and definitely not.

It’s time for the city to stand firm. We don’t want to turn away development, but we do want to turn away bad development. We want to turn away development that does not fit our vision for the city. We want to invite and incentivize development that does match our community vision.

There is plenty of land in suburban Peoria for cookie-cutter strip malls and seas of parking, but those aren’t the things that are going to bring people back into the heart of the city. As far as the Heart of Peoria Commission is concerned, allowing 80-foot setbacks is already a compromise of sorts. Because of less-than-ideal development that has occurred along that corridor for years, many of the businesses already have this setback, so for consistency and ease of development it seemed reasonable to the consultants to allow this pattern to continue — but not worsen.

I want to be clear that the goal here is not to frustrate developers. It is to make Peoria a beautiful place to live and work. We want to see the city revitalized. The kind of development that has taken place on University street has not accomplished that, so we want to see regulations in place that will keep bad development like that from happening elsewhere in the Heart of Peoria area. But at the same time, we want to invite developers to work within the new guidelines to bring in retail stores, business offices, and residential units that will have the form and pedestrian scale that we envision for this area.

Is that too much to ask?