Peoria Park District

Glen Oak Park languishes even as Zoo construction begins

13 Comments

Take a drive by the Luthy Botanical Gardens by Glen Oak Zoo and you’ll see a lot of activity. You may feel a bit disoriented by the sight of uprooted trees piled across the street and the plethora of earthmoving equipment. The serenity of nearby Glen Oak Park and Springdale Cemetery is broken by metronomic beats of steel being pounded into the ground to form an erosion-control wall. The land has the familiar graded look of being cleared for a new commercial business or housing project.

But this isn’t commercial or residential — it’s all the beginning of a $32.1 million addition to the Zoo called “Africa!” While the new zoo project is the site of new construction, the park next door shows disturbing signs of neglect.

Glen Oak Park, established in 1894, has a lot of things going for it: it’s in the middle of town, so it’s easily accessible by city dwellers wishing to enjoy its open fields and dense woods; it has a relatively new playground that children enjoy; its amphitheater is home to public dances, movies, Municipal Band concerts, Independence Day fireworks celebrations, and many other community events; it has a rich diversity of attractions, including tennis courts, the aforementioned zoo, baseball/softball diamonds, picnic areas, running track, lagoon, etc. The park has witnessed the best dresses for homecoming over the years.

But then there’s the other side of Glen Oak Park:

No Pedestrians

Foot Bridge

Glen Oak Cannon

Besides the footbridge being closed, the fact that no one can walk or drive under it effectively closes off a significant area of the park. Based on satellite photos, it appears the road behind the chain-link fence eventually meets up with the driveway that ascends from the lower entrance. Why should such a large area of the park be inaccessible due to poor maintenance of the suspension bridge once known as “Lover’s Bridge”?

The parapet is the most visible sign of what PeoriaIllinoisan rightly calls “demolition by neglect.” Is there any reason why this structure could not be repaired and maintained so as to be enjoyed by many families to come? What is gained by removing it? What will be put in its place?

Over the years, the Park District has poured money into projects of questionable value, such as the money-losing RiverPlex. There’s a certain excitement that comes from doing new things and being “progressive.” And no one wants the Park District to stagnate or never try anything new. But whatever new projects they fund should not come at the expense of maintaining the nearly 9,000 acres of land and other assets for which they’re currently responsible.

Now that the Park District has done the right thing by not allowing further encroachment into Glen Oak Park in the form of a school district land-sharing arrangement, they should focus on fixing up the park so that all the land can be enjoyed by those who go there. Tuckpoint the parapet. Fix or, if necessary, remove the foot bridge — but by all means, reduce the hazard so it doesn’t obstruct access. Maybe the bridge could be dismantled and moved to another part of the park if it doesn’t fit into the zoo plans in its current location.

Let’s polish up this jewel in the middle of our city and really make it shine once again.

[Cannon photo courtesy of PeoriaIllinoisan]

State Legislation

Note to Park Board: New OMA law takes effect

3 Comments

OMA EyeEffective in 2007, there’s a new wrinkle in the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Senate Bill 585 was signed into law on July 31 last year, and it took effect yesterday. Here’s what it does:

Redefines a “meeting” to include gatherings, whether in person or by telephone call, video or audio conference, electronic means (such as e-mail, chat, and instant messaging), or other means of contemporaneous interactive communication, of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business.

So, for instance, if a quorum of Park Board members were to all be chatting on IM or via e-mail about public business, that would be a violation of the OMA. Why? Because that would constitute a “meeting,” and another revision to the OMA outlaws this type of meeting:

[SB 585] requires that the number of public body members necessary to constitute a quorum must be physically present at an open meeting and permits participation and voting by other members by audio and video conference.

In other words, you can’t have a meeting over e-mail or IM. And audio or video conferencing is acceptable only under strict conditions:

If a quorum of the members of the public body is physically present as required by Section 2.01, a majority of the public body may allow a member of that body to attend the meeting by other means if the member is prevented from physically attending because of: (i) personal illness or disability; (ii) employment purposes or the business of the public body; or (iii) a family or other emergency. “Other means” is by video or audio conference.

These revisions will help to keep public business performed in public (assuming public bodies don’t go into closed session illegally and then destroy the evidence when caught). There’s no reasonable way for the public to monitor IM or e-mail deliberations, so requiring public bodies to be physically present in one place at one time so the public can attend and hear their discussions is responsible governance.

Kudos to the state legislature for ensuring this level of transparency.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 determined to not even consider Glen Oak School site

12 Comments

On WCBU radio this morning, the local news broadcast included a story on District 150 and their search for a Glen Oak/White replacement school site. School Board President David Gorenz was interviewed; he said that using the current Glen Oak School site would be “cost-prohibitive” even if they scaled back the size of the parcel they needed.

One wonders on what facts he bases that statement. Is that based on a complete teardown and rebuilding without first doing a “final review” of whether the current building could be renovated? Is that based on 10 acres? 5 acres? What configuration? Does it include selling the properties on Prospect (almost certainly at a loss) that the District bought prematurely? Does that include the $500,000 in City support that Bob Manning is still willing to ask the Council for if the District would come back to the negotiating table? Is it cost-prohibitive because they’re still trying to build a more-expensive “birth-through-eighth” school instead of a K-8 school?

The public is wearying of assumption-based School Board actions.

City of Peoria, Crime, Peoria Police

First day of the new year yields first murder

This isn’t a good omen. DeAndre Allen of Peoria was shot to death at 9:10 p.m. on New Year’s Day at 3229 N. Gale Ave. And Peoria’s homicide rate continues unabated.

But Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard is looking on the bright side. Noting that another person standing near Allen was also grazed by a bullet, the Journal Star quotes the Chief as saying:

“It’s very difficult,” Settingsgaard said of the new year’s first homicide. “We’re lucky we don’t have two people dead.”

With every dark cloud, there’s a silver lining, eh? It’s good to be positive, but something has to be done to curb the homicide rate in this city before we get a reputation like Gary, Indiana.

Peoria Journal Star

“Save the Journal Star” campaign begins

2 Comments

As rumored, a campaign to “save the Journal Star” started today. A full-page ad was taken out by the Newspaper Guild, and a website has been set up (www.savethejournalstar.com), saying:

As newspapers across the country change hands, greedy buyers are cutting staff, coverage and service and raising advertising rates. It all amounts to much less newspaper. […]

We will not tolerate an owner who insults our region with mediocre and half-hearted news coverage in the name of short-term profit. We will not tolerate an owner who refuses to recognize a responsibility for civic engagement.

To current Journal Star owner David Copley, we say: Continue to be a steward of first-rate journalism and civic responsibility. Sell only to a buyer who recognizes the common good that journalistic excellence represents.

To anyone who is in the market for the Journal Star, we say: Buyer beware! Regardless of who owns this newspaper, it belongs to this community.

I have to admit — and I said so in the comments section of their website — the Journal Star has the most comprehensive local coverage of any media in the greater Peoria area. Does the Journal Star have its shortcomings? Yes. But is there anyone in Peoria that covers more local news, crime, arts, neighborhood issues, civic events, sports, and other local fare? No. And seriously, overall they do a very good job. That doesn’t mean they’re above reproach, and I stand by my past criticism of them. But compared to the volume of news they cover every day, that’s really not bad.

In order to cover so many local events, it takes a lot of reporters. And to cover them well, it takes experienced reporters — not just experienced as in “been a reporter for x number of years,” but experienced in Peoria. To lose a large number of experienced reporters would be a huge blow to the quality of news coverage we’ve come to expect from the paper.

Still, I’m not — and I’m sure the Guild is not — so naive as to think there will be no job cuts regardless of who the new buyer is. Nor is every position indispensable. There will undoubtedly be some cost cutting, but my hope is that it will be, as the Guild states, “responsible.”

Peoria Pundit

Peoria Pundit changing hosting companies

2 Comments

I got this e-mail from Billy Dennis this morning:

Please leave a message on your blog saying that I am alive, but my hosting company has taken a dump on customer service. They have a known issue with a program they use that it essentially preventing my site from loading in [Firefox] and also preventing it from working well in Internet Explorer.

They’ve informed me that there is nothing they can do. I’m spending all day on NEW YEARS DAY trying to get presale questions answered so I can move my site, which will take at least another two days once I find a place that won’t quit on me when I have issues.

I’ve experienced trouble with Billy’s site lately myself. I can’t get to any of his permalinks using Firefox (my browser of choice), and when I tried to leave a comment using Internet Explorer, it never went through. If these are the “known issues” that his current hosting company (A Small Orange) is unwilling to fix, then obviously it’s time for the Pundit to head to another hosting company.

The comment I tried to leave Billy said that my hosting company is BlueHost, and I recommend them. I’ve been with them for a year and will be renewing for another year this month. They’ve always been responsive to any service issues I’ve had. In fact, one of the things I like is that I always get a human voice when I call, not dreaded voice-recognition menus. I’ve only had two outages in the past year, and both times my site was back up within two hours.

Good luck, Billy. And I hope you get some time away from your hosting problems to enjoy New Year’s Day. Happy new year!

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

Current Journal Star not without its skeletons

3 Comments

There’s quite a bit of consternation about the prospect of someone like Dave Ransburg buying the paper. The fear, presumably, is that news stories that don’t fit the buyers’ agenda for Peoria will be suppressed. There’s fear that the new owner might not be “responsible,” thus compromising the paper’s integrity.

I share those fears, but this is partially a case of “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” Is the current Journal Star pure of story suppression? Or do we just favor their known biases over the unknown biases of a rumored alliance of local businessmen (including Dave Ransburg) who may be trying to purchase the PJS?

For example, a reader of my blog recently sent me a copy of this letter (PDF format). It’s dated May 13, 2004, and is addressed to Dr. Sean C. Matheson. It’s signed by fourteen (14) District 150 administrators. It’s three pages long and expresses the administrators’ outrage over a litany of comments and actions by Matheson. “These comments and actions,” they conclude, “have been an attack on our professional judgment, integrity and reputations. They have created an uncomfortable and uncertain work environment that deters us from our mission.”

The person who forwarded this letter to me wrote, “This was passed to me a while back – it is my understanding that it was given to the PJS in 2004 and McDowell and Bailey suppressed [it] out of deference to their friendship with Matheson and Wieland.” Is this not the same kind of behavior we fear in a Ransburg? It would appear non-local corporate ownership is not the antidote to newsroom meddling.

I predict that, regardless of who buys the paper, there will be an adjustment period where we get to know the new owners’ biases, lambaste them, and then learn to compensate for them through other media, including TV, blogs, and alternative newspapers like the Peoria Times Observer.

Here are some interesting perspectives on local ownership of newspapers that I found on the web:

Peoria Journal Star

Employees unite to save Journal Star from Ransburg

12 Comments

The Peoria Pundit is reporting that Newspaper Guild employees at the Journal Star are going to start an aggressive campaign “to ensure the paper is sold to a responsible buyer.” The campaign is set to kick off on January 1, 2007, with a full-page ad and website.

According to their website, the mission statement of the Newspaper Guild is to (emphasis mine):

Advance the economic interests and to improve the working conditions of its members;

Guarantee, as far as it is able, equal employment and advancement opportunity in the newspaper industry and constant honesty in news, editorials, advertising, and business practices;

Raise the standards of journalism and ethics of the industry;

Foster friendly cooperation with all other workers;

Promote industrial unionism in the jurisdiction of the Guild.

I have a feeling the driving factor behind the push for a “responsible owner” is concern that rumored buyer Dave Ransburg would compromise the bolded principle above. One wonders what kind of retribution will be meted out if their efforts are unsuccessful and Ransburg is able to gain control of the city’s only newspaper.

If, heaven forbid, we do end up with a Ransburg-run Journal Star, could that action be the impetus for a large group of disaffected PJS employees to start a rival daily newspaper, making Peoria a two-newspaper town again? Or will the status of newsie blogs be elevated — in Peoria at least — as indispensable independent news sources?

Keep your eye on this site, still under construction as of this writing, for more details after the first of the year: www.savethejournalstar.com.

City of Peoria, Peoria Park District

Does allowing zoo construction portend designation denial?

5 Comments

Clare Jellick (who has a good blog of her own) reports in today’s Journal Star that plans to expand Glen Oak Zoo will be unhindered by the request to designate Glen Oak Park an historic site.

Section 16-86(d) of Peoria’s municipal code states (emphasis mine):

(d) Regulation during consideration period. From the date of filing an application until the date of a final decision by the commission, or if the commission recommends the designation, until the date of a final decision by the city council, the provisions of section 16-61 shall apply as if the subject property were designated as requested; provided, however, that this interim control shall in no case apply for more than 210 days after the application is filed. Once the area is designated as a historic district or a landmark, it shall comply with all the regulations set forth in articles I through IV of this chapter.

So, the next question is, what does section 16-61 say? Here it is:

Work on property and improvements shall be regulated as follows:

(1) Landmarks. No alterations, interior construction which affects structural members, exterior construction, removal of significant landscaping (for a shrub mass, more than 25 percent) or exterior demolition may be performed on property and improvements which have been designated under articles I through IV of this chapter as landmarks except as shall be approved by a certificate of appropriateness.

(2) Historic districts. No alterations, exterior construction, removal of significant landscaping (for a shrub mass, more than 25 percent) or exterior demolition may be performed on property and improvements located within an area which has been designated under articles I through IV of this chapter as a historical district except as shall be approved by a certificate of appropriateness.

However, Pat Landes, the city’s Director of Planning and Growth Management, tells Jellick that since the City Council approved a special use permit for the zoo expansion in June 2006, the city is going to allow construction to continue unhindered. She was pretty emphatic and definitive, reportedly saying, “The city has no plans to stop the construction of the zoo.”

Yet, according to section 16-4(c) of the municipal code (emphasis mine), “Whenever there is a conflict between the provisions of articles I through IV of [the Historic Preservation] chapter or a regulation adopted hereunder and the provisions of any other code or ordinance of the city, the more restrictive shall apply.”

It seems to me the City is breaking its own code in deference to the Park District. A plain reading of the code would indicate that the zoo expansion should be halted until the Historic Preservation Commission either approves or denies making Glen Oak Park an historic site. That the City is reluctant to enforce this temporary delay indicates, I believe, the City is unlikely to approve declaring the park an historic site either. Just a prediction.

Why? Because getting into a turf battle of this magnitude with the Park District would be expensive, acrimonious, and arguably disadvantageous for the city. Also, since the Park Board made the right final decision (from the City’s viewpoint at least) regarding the school siting issue, the City is likely to be more cooperative than they would have been otherwise.