Blogosphere, City Council, City of Peoria

PeoriaIllinoisan posts council questionnaire results

23 Comments

PeoriaIllinoisan did something that I had wanted to do but just don’t have time. He sent out his own questionnaire on city issues to all the candidates and has posted their responses on his blog. Take a look at what they said about:

The Kellar Branch
The Civic Center Hotel
Glen Oak School
Peoria’s Cumulative (Bullet) Voting System

And there are five other interesting questions that let you get a glimpse into their personalities as well.

There are 14 candidates and we’re going to be whittling them down to 10 at the primary election next Tuesday, February 27.

I’m not ready to make any endorsements yet, but I have ruled out a few candidates: Gale Thetford, Ryan Spain, Kelley Mammen, Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald. I think Thetford’s record is well documented and needs no further explanation. Ryan Spain is, in my opinion, a “progressive” and not an “essential-services-first” candidate, so I’m fundamentally opposed to his platform. His flashy campaign materials ($$$) and endorsement by Ray LaHood also make me uncomfortable (and before someone asks, yes, I know Jacob is spending more on campaign materials, but the difference is that he has visible means to do so). Kelley Mammen answered the question regarding the Kellar Branch, “That is such a beautiful area and I feel that it should be a trail only.” I’m not going to vote against someone just because they don’t agree with me on the Kellar Branch, but if this is any indication of how she will make decisions that will impact jobs and economic development, I have no confidence in her as a council person. Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald would make a better school board candidate. Education is clearly her passion, not broader city issues.

Now, this is not to say they aren’t all very nice people. I have nothing personal against them. All I’m saying is that I’m not interested in voting for them for the reasons listed. I think there are stronger candidates who will be better for Peoria. Who are my top five? I’ll continue whittling down the list….

Kellar Branch, Village of Peoria Heights

What’s best for the Heights?

40 Comments

This will be my 94th post in the “Kellar Branch” category, and in all those previous posts I don’t believe I’ve ever once looked at the situation from the viewpoint of Peoria Heights. I suppose that makes me a typical Peorian. Back in the ’60s, right after Peoria’s successful vote to annex Richwoods township, the city tried to annex Peoria Heights, too. That failed. They’re a resilient and independent community, and they have their own unique needs. It would be good for Peorians (including me) to remember that once in a while.

Peoria Heights AdWhen I talked to Peoria Heights Mayor Mark Allen on Thursday, he explained to me how he sees the Kellar Branch issue. Unlike Peoria, he said, the Heights is completely landlocked. They can’t just annex land to the north or west of their community to grow. They can’t build a regional mall along the fringes of town like Peoria can. All they have for economic development is what’s available to them right now within their village.

And the Kellar Branch corridor is one of their assets. They own the portion of the Kellar Branch that lies within their village. So they have to ask themselves, what’s the best use of that corridor for the Heights? A rail line or a recreational trail? In Mayor Allen’s opinion, the answer is definitely a rail line. And he believes a majority of the Village Board feels the same way.

With a rail line, there’s always the potential to carry freight, of course, and that can be used to lure a rail-served business to the Heights. But it also can provide another tourist attraction to complement the Heights Tower and shopping district: a tourist trolley. As Thursday’s Journal Star pointed out:

…according to a report from Gomaco Trolley Co., more than 40 U.S. cities are looking at running street cars. Tampa, Fla., spent about $55 million on its system and has reaped about $1 billion in development; Little Rock, Ark., spent $20 million on its line, which has returned about $200 million; and Kenosha, Wis., built a system for $5.2 million that has brought in about $150 million.

Those numbers are compelling. It would be crazy for the Heights to not consider the potential of a trolley for the development of their village. If the Park District gets their way and tears out the tracks, they’re gone forever. The Village is wise to give this idea due consideration before any permanent action is taken.

In contrast, a recreational trail can’t begin to measure up to those numbers. Trails are not conducive to shopping. Consider the average trail user: they’re exercising, they’re hot and sweaty, and they’ve packed light. They’re not going to buy clothes or jewelry or anything that they’re going to have to carry on foot or by bicycle 4-6 miles back to their car. They’re most likely to buy something to drink, and maybe something to eat, depending on how far they’ve come.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that — but the Village has an obligation to its citizens to make the best decision for the future of the Heights. Right now they’re gathering information, but it looks like they could be in a position to start making some decisions as early as April of this year.

Allen expressed his desire to work with Peoria on this project — he has no interest in being adversarial about it. He thinks this could be a mutually-beneficial partnership for the two municipalities. I’m inclined to agree.

We have a lot of unique, local attractions that are all tied together by that rail line: Downtown (including the Riverfront, Civic Center, future Museum, etc.), Peoria Heights (including Tower Park and their unique shops), Junction City (including Vonachen’s Old Place where you can eat on a vintage train car, plus more unique shops), and yes, even the Rock Island Trail at the other end of the line. Why not band together to provide a true tourist package to Peoria Area visitors?

Wouldn’t it be a great story if the Village that fought annexation forty years ago ended up being the impetus that drew our communities closer together?

City of Peoria, Kellar Branch, Village of Peoria Heights

Peoria misrepresents Peoria Heights to Surface Transportation Board

24 Comments

Today is the deadline for the City to file information with the Surface Transportation Board in the pending adverse discontinuance proceeding. The City filed their information this morning, basically just reiterating what was said at the last council meeting and informing the STB of the 9-2 vote in favor of CIRY as the carrier.

However, most curious was this statement (emphasis mine):

The Village of Peoria Heights concurs in the action voted by the City of Peoria. The Cities continue to support reconfiguration of rail service over the Branch whereby:

(1) Carver and any other shipper located near the north end of the Branch would be served from the west via CIRY’s connection with Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) at Pioneer Junction;

(2) O’Brien Steel Service Co, (O’Brien Steel) and any other shipper located near the south end of the Branch would be served from the east via CIRY’s connection with Tazewell & Peoria Railroad, Inc. (T&P); and

(3) the segment of the Branch between the facilities of those shippers, on which there is no traffic, would be converted to recreational trail use.

That’s kind of funny, because I just read in the paper that the Village wants to put a trolley on that line, not a trail. Also, no Village representative certified the filing with their signature, and the Village wasn’t even served with a copy of the filing!

So I called Peoria Heights and talked to Administrator Tom Horstmann. I read him the STB filing and he said that it is not accurate, the Village does not concur with Peoria’s action, and he advised me to send a copy of the filing to Mayor Allen, which I did. I have a feeling the City will be getting an unhappy phone call.

To claim the Village’s concurrency in a legal document to the STB without the Village’s consent is an unconscionable oversight at best. It’s pretty apparent that there is no communication between the City and the Village on this issue, which is surprising considering how much is riding on the Village’s commitment to this project. Most of the section that the City wants to turn into a trail is not located in the City, but in the Village. Furthermore, the Village owns the trackage that is within their municipal boundaries. If the Village isn’t on board with the City’s plans, the City better start considering Plan B.

In the meantime, the City obviously needs to retract their erroneous statement to the STB. And since the City has demonstrated a lack of interest in communicating with the Heights, the Village probably should start communicating their intentions regarding the Kellar Branch directly with the STB.

UPDATE: City of Peoria attorney Randy Ray says, “Our STB filing is being amended to reflect that Peoria Heights does not agree with the City’s position. They wish to take no position on the matter before the STB.”

When I talked to Mayor Allen earlier tonight, he explained that since Peoria Heights doesn’t receive any freight, they didn’t feel the need to take a position on which carrier would be used on the line at this time. Also, as I stated in the comments section, Allen believes this was just an honest mistake.

Kellar Branch, Village of Peoria Heights

Peoria Heights interested in trolley idea for Kellar Branch

16 Comments

Gomaco Trolley in PortlandWhile the City Council, Park District, Journal Star, and Recreational Trail Advocates scoffed at the idea of putting a trolley on the Kellar Branch line, there’s one key player who thinks the idea has some merit: the mayor of Peoria Heights.

A subscriber to the Peoria Rails Yahoo Group posted this message earlier today:

Look for a big splash in the paper tomorrow. Peoria Heights mayor Mark B. Allen at the Peoria/Pekin Urbanized Area Transportation Study (PPUATS) meeting today, said he wanted money for a look at a trolley line to link the new development at the old Cohen Warehouse to downtown Peoria. They want a replica street car to link the two areas to provide economic growth. With Peoria Heights on board so to speak, I would say that the rail line is safe for a while. I’d rather see a business with rail service in the old warehouse but any businesses that contributes to economic growth rather than drain taxes for a trail is a good thing.

Just think, if they built the trail next to the track, they could walk or bike the trail one way and ride the trolley the other. They would also support jobs. That’s a win win win for everyone.

This is significant because the bulk of the section the Park District wants to convert to a trail runs through Peoria Heights, not Peoria. In fact, Peoria Heights owns the portion of the Kellar Branch that passes through their village and could decide to sell it or lease it without having to get any approval from the Peoria City Council. That’s only fair, since Peoria has been unilaterally making decisions about the line up to this point in time.

The Kellar Branch saga continues.

UPDATE: Here’s the Journal Star’s first article on this story.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

Council says no to TIF for Civic Center hotel

7 Comments

The City Council tonight decided (4-6) not to add the Civic Center property to the proposed Warehouse District TIF, despite heavy lobbying from the Civic Center Authority.

I think this was the right decision. The Civic Center property has no business being in a TIF at all, let alone the Warehouse District. Despite their protestations to the contrary, I’ll bet the Civic Center Authority is back before the council soon with another plan to lure a hotel to their site — this time without requiring a TIF.

Kellar Branch

The starry-eyed dreamers are trail advocates, not rail proponents

2 Comments

So the predictable Journal Star editorial on the Kellar Branch today says this:

From where we sit, reports on the viability and cost of dual use of the corridor are too unreliable for that choice to be on the table now.

This was the most shocking quote in the whole editorial because the editors, for the first time in recent memory, did not just repeat the Park District’s numbers as though Moses carried them down from the mountain. No, they’re now “unreliable.”

Then, another shocking statement: “We generally acknowledge the economic development potential of railroads and other transportation infrastructure.” Good, good. They’re recognizing the obvious now. Any hope that they were coming to their senses was soon dashed, however:

But with regard to the Kellar branch specifically, two decades of trying with little success make us dubious. Whatever the excuses – and rail proponents cite several – the line has not delivered.

You gotta love self-fulfilling prophecies. For about 13 years of the last two decades the city has been trying to shut down the line, and the western spur was only completed less than a year ago. These are just “excuses”? Why, I could just as easily say that after two decades, the Park District has failed to make good on their promise to convert this to a hiking path and raise property values. Whatever their excuses — and trail advocates cite several — the Park District hasn’t delivered.

Here’s another little gem:

If the Kellar is such a can’t-miss economic development asset, why unload it at a loss?

Au contraire, if the Kellar Branch is worth $1.2 million dollars, why should the city lease it to the Park District for $1/year just so they can tear it up and build a trail on the corridor with at least six million more taxpayer dollars, not including on-going maintenance? Is that good stewardship of taxpayer money? What’s the return on that investment for the taxpayers? When will that investment break even? How? Most of the track in question is located in the Village Peoria Heights, not the City of Peoria. How does this benefit Peoria taxpayers?

It’s a wonder Councilman Gary Sandberg, City Hall’s most vocal skeptic of public subsidies for private businesses, has never complained about the significant subsidy for past users of this rail line; they got something for nothing courtesy of local taxpayers.

Suppose for a moment that we accept the Journal Star’s logic here. What do you think would be the reasonable solution to this?

  • (a) Start charging more to lease the line to rail carriers
  • (b) Reinstate the $175-per-car fee the city levied in the 1980s that made the line uncompetitive
  • (c) Sell the line so that a private owner can pay taxes on the line, thus removing the supposed “subsidy”
  • (d) A and B combined
  • (e) Lease it to the Park District for $1/year so it remains off the tax rolls, remove the $1.2 million (their figures) rail line, and instead of subsidizing tax-paying, job-creating businesses (like we do everywhere else in Peoria, including Junction City where they were just given enterprise zone status), start subsidizing bikers and joggers who already have nearly 9,000 acres of park land and miles of sidewalks and residential streets on which to exercise.

Naturally, the Journal Star picks the most nonsensical option: (e). Add to that the $100,000+ in legal fees the city has been paying to secure this $1.2 million corridor for the benefit of the Park District and, to paraphrase the illustrious editorial board, some folks, I dare say, are just caught up in the romance of trails. But there’s a price to that passion, and Peoria has been paying it too long for too little return.

City Council, City of Peoria, Kellar Branch

Pioneer Railcorp ups Kellar Branch offer to $750,000

15 Comments

Below is the text of the latest letter from Pioneer Railcorp to the Mayor and council members regarding the Kellar Branch. They’ve raised their $565,000 offer to $750,000. Tomorrow night, the city will decide if they want to pursue this three-quarters-of-a-million-dollars offer or continue paying legal fees out the nose for the benefit of the park district. It’s not like the city needs the money or anything.

February 16, 2007

Dear Council Member ——-:

Thank you for allowing me to speak at your meeting Tuesday night. I am writing to encourage you to support the selection of our Company to provide competitive rail service to the Peoria area, via the Keller Branch, and to reaffirm our commitment to share the railroad right of way with a trail, and work to develop a trolley/commuter service on the line to help local business and tourism.

Our sister Company Keokuk Junction Railway Co. is willing to purchase the Kellar Branch/”western connection” for $750,000. This is our last, best and final offer. I am confident that this offer is more than generous, especially since it is likely the City has already received a significant payback of its original investment from previous surcharges that were collected. Putting the Kellar Branch back in private hands will put it back on the tax rolls, allow us to make necessary investments in the track, and obviate the worsening weed/brush situation, which CIRY refuses to address.

Selling the railroad to our Company would facilitate the quickest and easiest means to build a trail, and will once and for all put an end to a problem that has festered for over 10 years. Please consider the fact that it is an unanswered question as to how much of the underlying real estate is actually owned by the City, if any. Aside from the rail issues, construction of a trail could be significantly delayed if it turns out that the property reverts to the adjoining landowners, if the Keller Branch were to be removed. This would not be an issue if the railroad remains intact. I am confident that a way to fund the construction of the trail will be found, once the decision has been made to keep the Keller Branch intact, just as it was for the trail between East Peoria and Morton along Highway 150. As I mentioned Tuesday, shared right of ways are being used all over the country and I would like to point out that the City already has a trail on railroad right of way along the downtown riverfront! Resolving this issue once and for all would allow the City to turn its attention to more pressing issues, such as reducing crime and increasing economic development. To date the City has wasted in excess of $100,000 of taxpayer money on legal fees alone on this issue, not to mention untold hundreds of thousands of dollars in staff and council time. Without immediate closure, this problem will be ongoing for many more years.

In regard to comments made concerning the importance of a rail carrier having a good relationship with the Union Pacific, please be assured that Pioneer Railcorp subsidiaries perform millions of dollars of business with the Union Pacific Railroad, all over the country, including handling 10,000 cars a year for the Union Pacific in Fort Smith, Arkansas and delivering 1 million tons of coal from the Union Pacific in Central Illinois. Of course, none of this would be possible if we were not able to work with the Union Pacific, as some have falsely claimed.

We have been the only company able to operate the Keller Branch at a profit, and anticipate significant growth in usage of the Keller Branch in the coming years. In addition, both current users of the line, including O’Brien Steel, have told the Council our Company provides excellent service. CRY has never provided reliable or dependable service to Carver Lumber, and I have concerns that CRY employees are not actually performing railroad services for O’Brien Steel, and instead believe the handling of O’Brien Steel rail traffic is being performed by O’Brien employees directly. If this is accurate, it is a potential liability exposure the City cannot afford to have. Mr. O’Brien’s company, contrary to the information he presented the Council, has historically been a moderate user of the Keller Branch. Please see the table below:

O’Brien Steel Rail Usage

Year Railcars
1998 95
1999 30
2000 76
2001 66
2002 74
2003 81
2004 116
2005 82
Total 620

In addition, it is my understanding that O’Brien received at least 45 cars in 2006. I think it is a safe assumption to make that O’Brien Steel would not have used rail it was not the most cost effective way to receive its product.

Thank you for your consideration of my request. Please be assured we want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. If you have any questions you would like answered please contact me anytime at […].

Respectfully,

J. Michael Carr
CEO and President

By the way, do you think rail and trail can’t coexist? Well, it does in South Elgin, Illinois. I guess they’re just more creative than we are here in Peoria:

Fox River Trail with Rail

Kellar Branch

(Disclaimer: No one is paying me to criticize Elaine Hopkins)

6 Comments

Former Journal Star reporter Elaine Hopkins has a new blog (disclaimer: no one is paying me to advertise her new blog) in which she makes sweeping assertions about how wonderful Peoria will be if only the Kellar Branch is converted to a recreational trail (disclaimer: no one is paying me to make sarcastic comments about Hopkins’ blog).

That’s not news (disclaimer: no one paid me to write that last sentence). What is interesting about her article (disclaimer: no one paid me to be interested in anything Hopkins has written) is this paragraph (disclaimer: no one paid me to reproduce or comment on this paragraph) in which she talks about nameless blogs that oppose the Kellar Branch conversion:

The blogs drone on endlessly, but never proclaim their independence from Pioneer Rail Co., the company behind the litigation and other stall tactics. Are these bloggers getting financial support from Pioneer? They should declare their independence, if they can do so.

Think about the implications of that statement (disclaimer: no one is paying me to ask you to think). Normally, if there’s a conflict of interest, you state it up front; if you don’t state it, it’s assumed that you have no conflict of interest unless there is some evidence that will prove otherwise — you know, the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing (disclaimer: no one is paying me to point out the obvious). But Hopkins turns that on its head. Apparently, she believes that you have an obligation to “declare [your] independence” in order to be free of suspicion about a possible conflict of interest (disclaimer: no one is paying me to demonstrate the logical conclusion of such an argument).

Can you imagine all the ink that would need to be spilled if every story had to include independence disclaimers? (Disclaimer: no one is paying me to put these irritating disclaimers all over the place to make a point.)

It’s also worth noting that she doesn’t declare her independence from the Park District or other trail supporters (disclaimer: no one is paying me to turn Hopkins’ cynicism back on herself). Are we to assume, by her standards, that she’s getting a check for her support? (Disclaimer: no one is paying me to scoff at Hopkins.)

Just for the record, four days before Ms. Hopkins’ post, I said right here on my blog, “The first thing [Khazzam] asked me was if I was being paid by Pioneer Rail in any way, shape, or form. He could hardly believe me when I said I wasn’t.” And three days before her post, I added in a follow-up comment, “No, my opinion on this issue hasn’t been bought. I’ve come to my conclusions honestly and after thoughtful independent research. I’ve never received any money from Pioneer, and that’s a fact.” (Disclaimer: no is paying me to say Pioneer isn’t paying me.)

So, put up or shut up, Ms. Hopkins. Do you have any evidence that bloggers are being paid off by Pioneer Railcorp? Let’s see it. The onus is on you. (Disclaimer: no one is paying me to challenge Hopkins.) Feel free to leave your evidence in the comments section of my blog; I’m not afraid to let people comment on my posts (disclaimer: no one is paying me to take a jab at Hopkins’ not allowing comments on her post).

Uncategorized

Back in the saddle again

1 Comment

Hello everyone. Did you miss me? I enjoyed my mini-vacation. It was refreshing and so nice to be “unplugged” for a few days. Of course, that meant I had roughly 30 billion e-mail messages when I returned. I’m sorting through them now.

I haven’t read through the papers or checked any other blogs for the past four days, so I feel a bit out of the loop at the moment. I did happen to see the “Another View” letter to the editor in Sunday’s paper (the heading was the misnomer of the year since it’s not “another view” but exactly the same view as the paper’s) and today’s “Word on the Street” (which was right on point).

While I’m catching up, feel free to use this as another open thread to talk about whatever you wish.