Sorry I haven’t been able to blog the last couple of days. Things have been really busy and I just haven’t had a chance. I’ll be blogging again soon!
City considering responses to school district plans
The city is none too pleased by the collusion of the school board, park board, and public housing authority regarding land swaps on the East Bluff that would leave some residents stripped of their property and others living next to a low-income housing project — all without any public input. It’s only fair for the city council to look out for the best interests of its constituents, but what recourse does it have?
Well, the land that the school board wants to take over by Glen Oak Park includes a couple of city streets (Republic and East). The school board can’t force the city to vacate those streets via eminent domain, and leaving the streets in place would be problematic for the board’s planned siting of the school. So the city’s control over those streets gives them some leverage.
Furthermore, the park district can’t sell land to the school district (it’s illegal), but they can lease it to them. However, if they do, any of that leased land is subject to city zoning ordinances. That means the city would have to approve the use of that land. Right now, as I understand it, the park district would want to use the leased land for parking.
It sounds as though there may be some other tricks up the council’s sleeve, too, so the siting of the new school isn’t “final” yet. It’s too bad things are shaping up for a fight. Last year, it really looked like the school board and the city were starting to get along — the city pitched in some resources to help the school district fight truancy, for instance. Now District 150 has made a lot of enemies and sown a lot of distrust because of their secret plans. Like Polly says, they’ve chosen the path of most resistance.
Council roundup: Good news for older neighborhoods
There were a few items passed by the council Tuesday that are good news for the older part of the city.
First was the Alley Lighting Program. This program will offer property owners, free of charge, high intensity security lights that illuminate the alley serving their property. The city had a similar program from 1995 to 2000, during which time they installed 658 lights. The council voted to spend up to $50,000 to install 150 alley lights in 2006, and tonight they chose to buy the lights from Grainger Electric and have Downard Electric install them.
Secondly, the council approved a contract with Ferrell Madden Associations (FMA) to provide “professional urban design and planning services.” Mayor Ardis praised this as the second phase in implementing the Heart of Peoria Plan (the first phase was the Renaissance Park proposals). Part of the contract is to develop form-based codes for the Heart of Peoria Plan area.
What is a form-based code? Put simply, it is a type of zoning that takes into consideration the context of an improvement or development. For instance, right now if a business in the older part of the city wants to expand, it is held to suburban standards for parking (x number parking spaces for every y number of square feet added). In dense urban areas, this is often impossible because the business is land-locked, so the business either continues without improvement or moves to an area that has more room for expansion, usually on the edge of town where such land is available. A form-based code will take into consideration the urban location and character of an area and apply urban standards for improvement/development of the property.
This goes hand-in-glove with the Heart of Peoria Plan, since it will also allow for mixed-use of properties. (For instance, a store owner could live in an apartment over his store, which would help small-business owners who may not be able to afford a separate store and residence.) This also provides incentive for neighborhood anchor stores to improve and expand, further strengthening the core of the city.
The public gets to provide input on developing the form-based codes (explanatory note to District 150 board members: “public input” means that the public gets to give input before a final decision is made). A charrette will take place May 19-25 at a time and location to be announced.
Finally, the city continues to pursue the purchase of property along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive so that it can one day be widened and improved.
All of these actions were approved unanimously.
Wir wünschen unser Wasserwerk
Some communities who want to buy their water works are pressuring RWE shareholders to sell some of its water utilities to the communities they serve. The mayor of Urbana, Illinois, Laurel Prussing, decided to go a step further — she’s there in person. You have to admire the tenacity of communities like Urbana, Lexington (Ky.), and Monterey (Cal.), but so far RWE has continued to give them all the same answer:
An RWE spokesman said the company didn’t want to sell American Water piecemeal.
“We see American Water as one entity and that all of these qualities that it has makes it unique and makes it a good partner for the communities,” Bill McAndrews told The Associated Press.
I found it interesting that this company appears to have resistance efforts down to a science. Just as they did in Illiniois when Peoria was trying to buy the water works, they did a survey of their customers and found that a good majority of them were happy with their water service:
[McAndrews] added the company, which was founded in 1886 and acquired by RWE in September 2001, had consistently drawn praise from its customers.
“They recently put out a questionnaire nationwide and the response was that 93 percent of their customers were satisfied,” McAndrews said. “Eighty-nine percent said they delivered what they promise and 83 percent said they can trust American Water.”
Of course, the mayors claim their water service is terrible. In any event, it’s looking more and more like the only choice for Illinois communities (other than Peoria, which has a buy-back option in their contract), if they want to buy their water works, is to get legislation passed that will allow them to force a sale without going through the ICC.
Hope Mayor Prussing enjoys her trip to the old country.
Quote of the Day
“The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.”
–Theodore Roosevelt
Slow news day
The article on the front page of the Journal Star today is about the traffic jams around Northwoods Community Church. Riveting.
I think the most interesting paragraph in the story was this one:
Though it claims only 750 parishioners, attendance at Northwoods has soared to an average of 4,300 members over the last six weeks – 550 more than the count at the beginning of the year.
Isn’t it odd that they have such high attendance, but low commitment? So many people willing to attend, despite major traffic inconvenience, but so few willing to commit themselves through formal church membership.
Northwoods models their church after Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois. It’s a “seeker-sensitive” church model, which means that on weekends (Saturday night and Sunday morning) the services are geared toward reaching the unchurched. The preaching doesn’t focus so much on doctrine and theology, but rather on the felt needs of the people they’re trying to reach. They set aside Wednesday nights as the time to build up believers and have more “meaty” sermons and extended times of worship; in other words, their Wednesday nights are more like most churches’ Sunday mornings.
I wonder how one measures the success of such a model. Is success measured in the number of weekend visitors, or the number of committed members? Or should the measurement be something else entirely? I’ve been reading a book called Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, and she claims that, historically, churches didn’t measure “success,” per se, and they certainly didn’t measure it in terms of numbers. Rather, they were more concerned about doctrinal purity and personal piety. They spent more time teaching their children the catechisms and their congregations the creeds, and evangelism was more of a personal endeavor than a corporate one.
I wonder how Northwoods defines success, and if they’re pleased or troubled by the disparity between visitors and members. Maybe Michael Miller can do a column on that in the religion section sometime. In the meantime, they’re trying to get that traffic situation under control.
Journal Star selectively hears Sandberg
The Journal Star Editorial Board had some bitter words for Councilman Sandberg in today’s paper, saying he “found a basketful of nits to pick” regarding the museum’s request for more money from the city. They focused in on Sandberg’s contention that TIFs are siphoning money from basic services, and defended TIFs in a paragraph that looked like a transcript of Councilwoman Van Auken’s statements from Tuesday night’s meeting.
But they also say in their editorial, “The subsurface parking was recommended by the Heart of Peoria Commission.” Now anyone who actually watched the council meeting Tuesday night would know that Sandberg spent a considerable amount of time debunking that misconception. He interrogated the museum and Caterpillar representatives, and they both admitted in plain language that the Heart of Peoria Commission never recommended subsurface parking — in fact, they recommended having no parking at all, except for street parking, because the block is surrounded by public parking.
So how did the Journal Star hear Gary’s comments about TIFs (which were brief) and miss his comments on parking (which were extensive)? I guess they’re just more interested in using Sandberg as a punching bag than getting their facts straight.
Peoria County poised to deny PDC expansion
The Peoria County Board took an “initial vote” on the PDC landfill expansion request tonight, and unless some board members change their mind between now and May 3 when they take the final vote, it looks like the application will go down to defeat.
I wasn’t able to attend, but WEEK-TV was there and offered this report on this evening’s news.
The county board can only evaluate the site application based on nine criteria (listed here verbatim from the county’s website):
- The facility meets the needs of the area it is intended to serve;
- Public health, safety and welfare are protected in the facility design and location;
- Care has been taken to minimize the incompatibility of the facility with the character of the surrounding area and property values;
- The facility is outside the boundary of the 100-year flood plain;
- The facility operating plans minimize the danger to the surrounding area from fire, spills or other operational accidents;
- The traffic patterns to and from the facility minimize the impact on existing traffic flow;
- An emergency response plan for the facility has been developed to include notification, containment and evacuation procedures in case of an accidental release.
- Groundwater protection provisions have been met; and
- The facility is consistent with the County’s solid waste management plan.
In their “initial vote” tonight — WEEK called it a “dress rehearsal” — the board approved only seven of the nine. The two they didn’t approve? Numbers 2 & 3 above — the same reasons I was against the application.
Expect to see some heavy lobbying by the Journal Star, Peoria Pundit, and of course PDC over the next few weeks as they try to persuade the board that having a hazardous waste dump next door really won’t affect property values or endanger our health. Maybe they can also try convincing us that pigs can fly.
I’ll be hoping the vote on May 3 is the same as the vote tonight. The board made the right decision.
UPDATE (4/7/06): WMBD-AM Radio and the Journal Star this morning report that the county board voted down three of the criteria — the two WEEK mentioned as well as number 1 above (in other words, they voted the expansion is not needed to accommodate area waste). The vote was 10-7.
Landfill expansion: Common sense says “no”
I have refrained from commenting on this topic because I had high hopes of wading through the public hearing transcripts, site application, letters recommending passage/denial, etc., etc. But, alas, I simply don’t have the time to do that.
But there are some things I know about the landfill that I don’t need to read 5,000 pages to discover: it’s just outside the city close to residential neighborhoods, it sits over an aquifer that supplies most of our drinking water (or to be precise, “sands hydrolically connected to the San Koty aquifer), and it has hazardous waste buried in it including heavy metals like lead and mercury.
Based on those facts, plus things I’ve read on both sides of the issue (Journal Star, Bill Dennis, PDC, Families Against Toxic Waste, etc.), I think the common sense position is to vote this down. I’m primarily opposed to its placement, not the mere existence of it.
But there is one other thing I’m opposed to, and that’s the fact that they receive most of their hazardous waste from outside this area. Proponents of the hazardous waste landfill like to throw the n-word (NIMBY) at opponents, as if we Peorians are just creating all this hazardous waste and want someone else to take it off our hands.
In reality, the exact opposite is the case.
We’ve been taking on the toxic waste of ten other NIMBY states. 84% of the hazardous waste PDC collects is from outside of Peoria. I think we’ve been more than generous by having all that filth in our “backyards” these past 15 years. It’s time for other cities and states to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own hazardous waste.
There’s plenty of legal justification for voting this project down based on risk to health and safety and the adverse impact it would have on property values. The county board should deny PDC’s request for expansion.
Museum Square: Boondoggle in the Making, Part IV
I’ve pulled no punches in my criticism of the Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) in the past, especially as it relates to Museum Square. I still think they dropped the ball in a big way when they didn’t make any recommendation for or against the site plan, despite its obvious non-conformity with the Heart of Peoria Plan, which the council adopted “in principle.”
But the city council is not without culpability for that failure. I felt a little uncomfortable last night listening to one council member use the HOPC’s failure as an scapegoat for letting this project proceed unhindered.
The HOPC is not an elected body. It’s appointed by the mayor. They don’t make binding decisions, but merely recommendations. The fact that the HOPC couldn’t produce a recommendation should have been a sign that there were problems within the commission that were preventing them from reaching consensus. At best, it should have been a sign that the site plan was controversial. And the council — our elected representatives — should have stepped up to the plate and shown some leadership on that issue.
It’s not like there’s no precedent for the council to take action against the recommendation of a commission. The Railroad Commission recommended preserving the Kellar Branch for competitive rail service, but the council overruled them and approved turning a half-million-dollar asset into a bike path.
The buck stops at the council. Like it or not, regardless of what the commissions recommend or don’t recommend, the council is responsible for the decisions. And the decision to approve this site plan for the Sears block was a poor one.
Why? As I said earlier, the council adopted “in principle” the Heart of Peoria Plan. If that’s going to mean anything, it needs to apply to every developer, not just developers who don’t have Caterpillar backing. And it should apply to every project — especially a project on the “crown jewel” of downtown Peoria.
This museum project doesn’t conform in any way to the Heart of Peoria Plan:
- The HOP Plan called for high-density development with large buildings, making optimal use of the whole block and having an urban character. The site plan is low-density; roughly two-thirds of the block will be open space with buildings and landscape that will look suburban in character.
- The HOP Plan called for mixed-use with a residential component to make it a true 24/7 block. The site plan includes a museum, a visitor center, and some small retail that faces Water Street — all things that will close in the evening, leaving the block dead at night.
- The HOP Plan called for building designs and materials that will blend with the surrounding architecture. The surrounding architecture is traditional, with brick and stone façades. The museum and visitor center designs are modern, with steel and glass façades.
- While additional parking was envisioned by the HOP Plan for a high-density design for this block, the low-density site plan design doesn’t warrant additional parking since surrounding parking areas are sufficient.
The worst part is, the council had a chance to challenge this site plan, even as late as Tuesday night. Nothing has been built yet. These buildings are still just on paper. I know there’s expense that goes into designing and engineering those drawings, but it’s nothing compared to the cost of actually building the structures.
Unfortunately, since the council won’t stand up to Cat and has a handy scapegoat in the HOPC, it looks like we’ll be stuck with yet another boondoggle.