City Council, Peoria Civic Center

How about if Peoria buys the naming rights?

3 Comments

I got to thinking about my last post, and I have an idea.

Do you remember how the federal government regulated speed limits in the ’70s?  They told states they could have any speed limit they wanted, but if they wanted federal money to maintain the roads, the speed limits had to be no faster than 55 mph.

Suppose the City Council were to pass an amendment that says the Civic Center Authority can name the venue and arena whatever it wants, but if it wants HRA tax revenues, it will have to be named the “Peoria Civic Center” and “Carver Arena”?  Doesn’t that sound fair?  That way, if they can wean themselves off HRA taxes, they can sell the naming rights.  But as long as they’re operating on taxpayer dollars, the taxpayers get to decide the name.

I think we’ve earned that right, don’t you?  According to the Journal Star’s editorial today, HRA taxes amount to $55 million.  Here’s an issue where I agree with the Journal Star — the Civic Center should scale back their plans instead of selling the naming rights.

Peoria Civic Center

Naming the Civic Center

4 Comments

The Journal Star reports that any renaming of Carver Arena may need City Council approval. Whether or not that’s true, what do you think of selling the naming rights for the Civic Center and Carver Arena?

I personally think it stinks.  The reason they need to sell naming rights is because they don’t have enough money, which begs the question, “why are they expanding if they don’t have enough money?”  I thought the Civic Center was supposed to become self-sustaining, eliminating the need for the HRA tax.  Now, not only do we get to continue paying these taxes, we won’t even be able to call the place the “Peoria Civic Center” much longer.  If they’re that short on funds, they should scale back their expansion plans rather than strip the venue of its names.

O’Brien Automotive pays $150,000 a year for naming rights on the ballpark.  Haven’t Peoria area residents paid enough in HRA taxes to earn having the name of our city on the Civic Center?

City Council, Television

State of the City

4 Comments

Mayor Ardis delivered the State of the City address today at the Holiday Inn City Center.  HOI News and 1470 WMBD each have good reports. If you’d like to see it for yourself, Insight Communications will be rebroadcasting it tomorrow, January 26th, at noon on cable channel 22.

UPDATE: Jonathan Ahl has informed me that a podcast of the State of the City address is available from www.wcbufm.org. WCBU (89.9 FM) will also be rebroadcasting the address at 7 p.m. Tuesday, January 31.

UPDATE 2: The Journal Star has a PDF of the speech on its site.

Kellar Branch

More propaganda from the Journal Star

1 Comment

There are few things in today’s Journal Star editorial about the Kellar Branch that deserve a response:

The park district, unable to act, has watched about half of a $400,000 state grant evaporate.

It’s worth pointing out that the park district applied for that money prematurely–before going to the STB, building the spur, etc.  It’s their own fault that they jumped the gun and are paying the consequences now.

. . . the lumber company is temporarily shelling out more for truck service . . . 

This is the only reference, vague as it is, to the fact that Carver has incurred over $25,000 in additional costs for truck service. Why didn’t they put the numbers in their editorial?  They didn’t have any trouble mentioning the $400,000 grant the park district is concerned about.

. . . it has Pioneer to blame for blocking early construction.

Ah yes, it’s all Pioneer’s fault!  I’m not about to contest the fact that Pioneer did in fact delay construction, but they’ve been off the tracks since August 2005.  What’s their excuse for the past five months?  At least while Pioneer was delaying construction, they were making deliveries to Carver.  Now that construction is not delayed, Carver’s getting no shipments at all.

Besides that, this editorial leads people to the false conclusion that the reason Carver isn’t getting shipments is because the western spur isn’t finished.  That’s misleading.  The reasons they aren’t receiving shipments is because (a) Metroplex tore up a part of the line where the spur meets the Kellar Branch, so no trains can cross, and (b) the city’s carrier, Central Illinois Railroad, can’t get the rail cars up the steep incline of the Kellar Branch. And did I mention because they’ve never made a sincle shipment to Carver, they’re in breach of contract with the city?  I wonder what action, if any, the city is taking against them for that. 

Central Illinois Railroad and long-hauler Union Pacific have some physical stumbling blocks to sort out.

This is excessively vague. What do they mean by “physical stumbling blocks”? Do they mean the junction the city is building where the western spur meets the UP line that will only allow for cars to be dropped off by north-bound trains?  Or do they mean CIRY’s inability to secure trackage rights to run a train to the western spur on the UP line?

U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, who has worked diligently to get the trail going, has again offered to help.

And by “help,” they mean “help the park district get its beloved trail.” It’s gotta make a business like Carver feel good to know their own congressman is siding against them.

As usual, the problems with the city’s carrier (CIRY) and contractor (Metroplex) are glossed over and the plight of Carver Lumber is minimized.

Ray LaHood

Firefly Energy given military contract via controversial “earmark”

1 Comment

The Associated Press reports that Peoria-based Firefly Energy, Inc., has “landed a $2.5 million contract to develop its new generation of lighter, more powerful batteries for the military.”  Firefly is a pretty new company, founded in May 2003.  They use technology developed by Caterpillar to replace the lead plates found in batteries with a lighter, longer-lasting, and more ecologically-friendly material.

The part of the AP report I found interesting, though, was this:

LaHood said he secured Firefly’s contact through an addition to the defense bill known as an “earmark.” The practice has drawn criticism during recent debate over ethics reform because opponents say it breeds corruption, providing millions of dollars for lawmakers’ pet projects.

“Earmarks” are getting a lot of press these days. Congressman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) gave his “Porker of the Week” award to Congress for earmarks in the federal transportation bill for “the bridge to nowhere“ last November. The bridge in question costs $320 million and connects the town of Ketchikan (pop. 8900) with the island of Gravina (pop. 50) in Alaska. And it was John McCain (R-Ariz.) who said that earmarks “breed corruption.”

Being a curious person by nature, I wanted to find out how these dastardly “earmarks” get into bills in the first place. It appears no one knows except congresspersons and lobbyists. But somehow, through some secret process, members of Congress can direct money to individual companies by inserting these “earmarks” into huge appropriations bills. The earmarks are not debated and thus need not be defended.

So, I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is, do the ends justify the means?  Obviously this military contract for Firefly is good for Peoria, but I imagine the bridge in Ketchikan is good for the economy there, too.  Where do we draw the line? 

City Council, Heart of Peoria Plan, Southtown

Council roundup: Southtown deal approved

The council did the right thing by not delaying the vote on the Southtown project any longer.  The motion to defer was overturned and the council voted 10-1 to approve the project.

I wasn’t too thrilled about delaying the vote at the request of Methodist or OSF, but I thought Gary Sandberg had some excellent points regarding the suburban design of the building and the proposed density of the development.  Whatever is built in Southtown should be required to conform to the Heart of Peoria Plan.  If there is no process to facilitate that requirement, the Heart of Peoria Commission and the City Council should develop one.

Annexation, City Council

Council roundup: Crusen’s request to leave city deferred

Crusens wants their newly-acquired Hunts property at the corner of Farmington and Park roads to be annexed to West Peoria.  To do that, they have to get permission from the City of Peoria to disconnect from the city.  City of Peoria staff recommends denying that request, so Crusens asked for a one-week deferment.

After some acrimonious comments from Councilman Morris (who clearly is against letting the Hunts property out of the city), the council approved the deferral.

City Council, Southtown

The courtesy of a deferral

Second-district councilperson Barbara Van Auken laid out her case for granting “the courtesy of a deferral” to OSF, Methodist, or any business that has shown a long-term commitment to the city/community.  She wanted to make it clear that by doing so, she’s not favoring one project over another.  I believe her.

But, I can’t help but think she may have been used by the hospital(s) to affect the outcome anyway, however unintentionally.  Take a look at this report from the Journal Star today:

More than likely, the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board will only approve one such acute-care facility for the Peoria area, as it recently did in Springfield with two competing proposals.

There, Select Medical was not chosen because it filed second.

Notice the timing issue — “Select Medical was not chosen because it filed second.”  Could it be that the one week deferral provided Methodist with the ability to get in their application for a “certificate of need” first?  And, if so, wouldn’t that give them quite an advantage in the competition for a state permit?

I could be all wet.  I hope I am.  But I’ll be interested to see the dates on the applications.