Peoria Pundit

Stupid things that have come out of Billy Dennis’s blog

16 Comments

If you haven’t noticed, Billy Dennis has been on a crusade against Rush Limbaugh. Lately he’s taken to putting up post after post after post of “stupid” Rush Limbaugh quotes–about one an hour. I thought, just for fun, we’d turn the tables and see if there are any “stupid” Billy Dennis quotes we could find. It just so happens there are a few:

“Yes, you can ask 100 mothers, and 99 percent of them would be APPALLED that a 20-year-old female babysitter bought alcohol for a 14-year-old boy and seduced him. The percentage of 14-year-old boys who feel the same way? Eh, not so much. Anyway, she’s been charged with a crime because mother[s] vote.”

—Billy Dennis, arguing that statutory rape is not so bad for boys, August 4, 2011

“There’s a movement afoot to deny pediatric care to children who’s [sic] parents choose not to immunize them. Good. Failure to immunize is bad for individual kids. If enough children in any one area do not immunize, it can be wildly fatal. So, if you commit an anti-social act of failing to immunize your kids, you should be denied the benefits of society.”

—Billy Dennis, from a post titled “Let Them Die” supporting death and the denial of medical care for children because their parents didn’t immunize them, August 4, 2011

“Putting a committed environmental activist on any landfill committee makes about as much sense as putting members of the Flat Earth Society on a committee that designs spaceships.”

—Billy Dennis, calling environmentalists ignorant and impediments to landfill oversight, December 21, 2009

“Folks, the last thing that District 150 needs is for every chronically truant kid to suddenly start putting in time in school, draining time, energy and resources away from kids who want to learn. …[I]f someone is determined to remain an uneducated serf, let ‘em. Plenty of dropouts means a large pool of cheap labor, so maybe it won’t cost so much to have someone pump my gas or flip burgers at my favorite fast-food restaurant.”

—Billy Dennis, opposing enforcement of truancy laws and encouraging exploitation of the uneducated, July 15, 2004

“I have a suggestion for someone who cannot abide humor based on sex: Stay home. Turn off your television. Hide under your bed. You will be safe there.”

—Billy Dennis, defending sexual harassment by former deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, July 15, 2004

These are all quotes from the man who wants to see another pundit taken off the air for making stupid and insensitive remarks. See, Billy employs mockery and scorn in his writing often because, he says, it’s “fun” and “effective writing” that gets his point across and causes more people to pay attention. But when a radio host does the same thing, Billy is incensed. Ironic, huh?

In looking back over Billy’s posts, I was most struck by all the offensive free speech he’s actually defended over the years. There was Ted Rall’s racist editorial cartoon where he called Condoleeza Rice the n-word. Billy’s response: Ignore him. Then there was shock-jock Howard Stern’s regularly offensive content. Billy’s response: “Leave content alone. No one is being forced to listen to Stern. Radios and televisions have off buttons, people.” There are more examples which all follow the same reasoning. So it’s no small departure for Billy to be doing what he’s doing now: Leading a campaign to boycott Rush’s local advertisers and try to get WMBD-AM to take him off the air because of something stupid Rush said.

It makes one wonder, why now? Why this? What is it about Limbaugh’s offensive content that is so much more egregious than Rall’s or Stern’s (or his own)? Why does he defend keeping all other offensive content on the air and in print but seek to silence Limbaugh? It’s a glaring inconsistency.

My guess is he’s just doing it for hits on his website, which brings in more advertising revenue. And you know what that makes him? Well, I’d better not say…. 😉Художник

Democrat Party, Elections

Woodmancy’s criminal record cannot be easily set aside

10 Comments

I’ve been getting press releases from a Democrat candidate for the 18th Congressional District, Matthew Woodmancy. They invariably include a disclaimer that goes like this:

Matthew Woodmancy has a criminal record for a foolish act and is paying his fines and has moved on with his life. He is ready to serve, ready to listen to his constituency, and ready to support real changes to the government.

The rap sheet on Woodmancy is well known, but for the sake of completeness, here it is again, courtesy of the Peoria Journal Star:

  • Convicted felon, still on probation until 2013
  • Convicted of criminal theft for stealing from a family member and that person’s now-shuttered Bloomington-based business in 2006
  • Sentenced to jail time, probation and $45,000 in fines and restitution
  • Charged with misdemeanor battery and pleaded guilty in 2008
  • Pleaded guilty in 2009 to driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol
  • Has more than a dozen other traffic tickets, including driving on a suspended license
  • His license has been revoked and most of his fines from the traffic tickets have been referred to collections

Woodmancy’s campaign strategy is to be up-front about his criminal past, point out that he has paid and is currently paying his debt to society, and assure us that he’s a changed man and has “moved on with his life,” from which I infer he means we should move on as well and not hold any of his criminal past against him now.

Do you need a National Police Check for Commonwealth employment, working / living in Australia, overseas adoption or travelling overseas? Make sure to check out rapidscreening.com.au Rapid Screening is a trusted organisation authorised to provide national police clearances within Australia.

It’s my contention that his criminal past cannot so easily be set aside, despite his obvious desire to put it behind him. These are not crimes that took place in the distant past. These were just committed within the past three to six years. One of them is a crime for which he’s still doing the time. Indeed, one wonders, were he to win, if he could even go to Washington without breaking his parole.

Woodmancy wants us to see his transparency about his criminal past as a virtue. He’s coming clean and not trying to conceal anything. I would counter, first of all, that calling the above rap sheet “a foolish act” in his press release is not completely honest. It whitewashes the fact that it wasn’t a foolish act, but rather several, some more serious than others, but all indicating a lack of principle, integrity, and self-control. These are not generally the kinds of character qualities most people are looking for in a Congressional candidate. In fairness, he has in other contexts owned up to all his crimes.

That said, publicly acknowledging a matter of public record that you know will come out anyway is not really a virtue. What other option did he have? I suppose he could have tried to convince us he was wrongly convicted, so there is some refreshment in having a convicted felon admit he is, in fact, guilty. Still, when you honestly admit you defrauded someone, the honesty and fraud sort of cancel each other out.

But why can’t we just let bygones be bygones? Woodmancy claims to be a changed man. He’s “turned [his] life around, thanks to the help of friends and family,” he says. So is his criminal past relevant now that he’s paying his debt to society? Can’t people change? How long should we hold these crimes against him?

I would suggest that we wait at least until he’s done serving his time, has paid his fines, and has made full restitution. That would seem to be a reasonable minimum expectation. Even Jehan Gordon (finally) paid her fine for shoplifting before she was elected.

Woodmancy’s friend Fred Smith points out in a recent blog post, “Our system of justice says that once someone has paid their debt to society, the slate is wiped clean unless they continue to screw up.” True enough, but Woodmancy is still doing the time. His parole isn’t up until next year. So there’s no “clean slate” yet, even by Smith’s standards.

Beyond that, it would be nice to see a few years go by without any additions to his rap sheet. The only sure way to know if a person has changed is to see proof of that change over time. I want to believe that Woodmancy really has changed, as he claims. But recidivism rates are high in Illinois—over 51% of parolees commit another crime or violate the rules of their supervision within three years according to a 2011 Pew Research study. So putting a little more time between the crime and a run for office would likely inspire greater confidence in voters.

I believe people can change. I don’t think we should hold past convictions against people forever. I understand why Mr. Woodmancy would want to put these crimes behind him as quickly as possible. But when you commit a crime, you break trust not only with the victim, but with society, and you can’t rebuild that trust overnight. I applaud Woodmancy for wanting to serve in public office, but he really needs to spend more time rebuilding his trustworthiness in the community first.

City Council, City of Peoria

The latest line drawn by the City

5 Comments

The Journal Star recently published the following quote regarding the Wonderful Development:

“The developer doesn’t need a reminder from the council of the hard deadline in place,” Mayor Jim Ardis said. “He knows he has to deal with any obstacles and put us in a position to close by the end of the month. That won’t change.”

Did you see that? This latest deadline is different than all the previous deadlines. This one is a hard deadline. We really mean business this time! No more of those phony deadlines of the past three and a half years! This is a hard deadline. Do you hear me, Mr. Matthews? HARD!

It is to laugh. Does anyone really believe this? It’s like that old Bugs Bunny cartoon:

City Council, City of Peoria

Chronicle prediction comes true

56 Comments

Back in January, when the Peoria City Council agreed to extend the Wonderful Development deadline until the end of February, I predicted that “Long about February 21, you can reasonably expect the council agenda to include another deadline extension.” Well, it’s February 22, and guess what? The council agenda for next Tuesday includes a request to extend the deadline until the end of March now.

I feel confident in predicting that, if this is approved, the new deadline won’t be met either. At the end of March will be another deadline extension request. This may happen every month in perpetuity, or at least as long as the majority of this council is allowed to remain in office, and Gary Matthews is never held to a real deadline.

Just for those council people who are unaware of the definition of “deadline,” here it is: “The time by which something must be finished or submitted; the latest time for finishing something.” That’s not how the Council has been defining it, obviously.

Amtrak, Illinois Dept. of Transportation

Direct passenger rail route to Chicago denied; Peorians told to ride the bus

12 Comments

Right about the time I stopped blogging last year, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) released its “Feasibility Report of Proposed Amtrak Service” between Chicago and Peoria. So I’m five months late with my analysis. But then, IDOT was about three years late releasing the study.

All you need to read to know that this feasibility report is a sham is this paragraph from the introduction:

With the successful application by the State of Illinois for federal stimulus funding to upgrade the Chicago-St. Louis corridor (hereinafter referred to as “corridor”) to a maximum speed of 110 mph, the study request was modified to one route that would provide the Peoria area with connectivity to certain Amtrak corridor trains. After an initial review of the various routes, it became apparent that instead of a complete route feasibility study between Chicago and Peoria, either a rail or bus shuttle between the Peoria area and Normal, Illinois, utilizing the new multi-modal station currently under construction at Normal, would be the most expedient way to meet the State’s goal. A decision was made by IDOT that no through-train frequencies between Peoria and Chicago were to be considered.

And there you have it. The feasibility study — first requested in March 2007 — was aborted before it ever began.

You see, the original request to study direct service between Peoria and Chicago. There was no request for this to be a high-speed train or to connect to a high-speed corridor. But then the request was inexplicably modified. Instead of simply looking at direct service, the request was changed to look at service that would connect with the new “high speed” corridor between Chicago and St. Louis that passes through Normal.

Well, that screwed up everything. Now the only routes they can consider are the shortest routes to the “high speed” corridor, and how to get the train up to 110 mph once it gets there. Based on this new criteria, IDOT decided they weren’t even going to consider direct service to Chicago from the State’s third-largest metropolitan statistical area.

Instead, they spent four and a half years researching the best rail and bus routes from here to Normal. It doesn’t take a member of Mensa to figure out that rail service between Peoria and Normal is idiotic. But they did the math anyway and determined that it would cost $134 million in infrastructure and capital costs, plus an operating subsidy of $2,211,000 per year. Bus service? No infrastructure or capital costs, and an annual operating subsidy of $273,000.

So, thanks to a mysteriously modified request, we have a “feasibility report” that says, “drive to Normal if you want to go to Chicago.” In other words: status quo. No rail service for you.

The first question I want answered is, who modified the request? Was it IDOT? The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission? Ray LaHood? Who? And my next question is, of course, why?

Why was a study of a direct route to Chicago aborted? Included at the end of the report (starting on page 19) is what I can only assume is their “initial review of various routes.” And “Route B” looks very attractive, and feasible. It would travel south from Chicago through Joliet and Pontiac to Chenoa, then head west to East Peoria over the Toledo, Peoria and Western Railroad (TP&W), which they say has “relatively light” traffic — only three trains a day on average.

Furthermore, the cost to upgrade the TP&W infrastructure so that passenger trains could travel at 79 mph (not “high speed”) is only $52 million — less than half the $106 million they estimate it would cost to improve the tracks between Peoria and Normal to the same speed. Heck, even if they upgraded Route B to 110 mph (“high speed”), it would still cost $6 million less than upgrading tracks between Peoria and Normal to 79 mph speeds. And since Route B would be a through-train from Peoria all the way to Chicago, it would have higher ridership and thus higher revenue, which would reduce its annual operating subsidy.

But IDOT didn’t consider this option because, apparently, it wasn’t “the most expedient way to meet the State’s goal.” Why wasn’t it?

Who spiked the IDOT-Amtrak feasibility study and why? That’s the question that demands an answer.

Beth Akeson

Not a head shot you’ll see on any campaign literature

4 Comments

“Have you seen the picture of my head?” Councilwoman Beth Akeson asked me recently.

Before I could answer, I was confronted with a picture on her iPhone that looked like an autopsy photo you’d see on TV. There was the back of her head with a large, bloody gash in it.

“I was in the neuro ward for two days,” she continued.

What could have caused such a serious injury? A car accident? A disgruntled city resident? A mugging?
If you or your family member has been injured in a serious big rig accident, and there were catastrophic injuries or death as a result, you need the best truck accident lawyer in Houston who has experience litigating against truck transportation companies and their highly specialized and experienced insurance defense lawyers.

None of the above. She slipped on the ice while out for a walk a couple of weeks ago. But what a slip!

It was one of those situations where there was some ice that was covered with a dusting of snow, so it didn’t look particularly slick or treacherous. But it was. “One minute I was walking, and then a second later I was looking up at the sky and everything looked like it was swirling.” She never lost consciousness, but was afraid to move, so she called her husband, Jeff. And in turn, Jeff immediately called a personal injury lawyer from www.itsaboutjustice.law/personal-injury-attorney/ right after calling an ambulance.

Jeff said that when he arrived on the scene, she was lying on her back in her bright yellow coat with a large pool of blood around her head. “It looked like a scene out of C. S. I.,” he told me. He’s an orthopedic surgeon, so he’s no stranger to the effects of bodily harm caused by accidents. He immediately took her to the hospital himself, though in retrospect admits he probably should have called an ambulance. Contact a personal injury today using the simple online contact form on https://www.georgiainjurylawyer.com/truck-accidents/ for a free consultation.

At first, the emergency room personnel were not particularly worried. Minor head wounds can produce a lot of blood, so they expected a small cut for which Beth could be treated and released. But once they started cleaning it up, they discovered that it was much larger and deeper than they anticipated. To know more about Tiffany Fina Law visit us here get more info on legal separation.

A CT scan revealed she had a subdural hematoma, so she was admitted to the hospital where the injury could be constantly monitored. Fortunately, she made good progress and didn’t require surgery. She was released after two days. Three days later she attended a City Council meeting — Gary Sandberg jokingly suggested that’s a sign that her head injury is not fully healed yet.

Akeson is thankful she had her phone with her when the accident happened, as she doesn’t believe she could have walked back home for help. “Always take a phone with you when you walk,” she now advises everyone to whom she shows the picture of her head injury. “You never know when something like that is going to happen.”


Aaron Schock

Schock unopposed thanks to “ruthless tactics” he once decried

17 Comments

Eleven years ago, Aaron Schock was nineteen, just out of high school, and a candidate for the Peoria Public Schools Board of Education. At the time, 200 signatures were required to get on the ballot, and he filed 220.

Attorney Bob Hall, a close friend of Schock’s opponent (board president Rhonda Hunt), contested the signatures and found a number of irregularities. One of the petitions wasn’t signed by the person who circulated it. Several of the signers were not registered voters. Some of them didn’t put their addresses on the petitions.

“You might say it’s picky,” Hall told the Journal Star. “But pickiness is exactly what the Legislature expected.”

Hall prevailed and Schock was thrown off the ballot. Everyone remembers what happened next: Schock mounted a write-in campaign and beat Hunt for the school board seat anyway. It’s a real David vs. Goliath story.

Not so well remembered is Schock’s initial reaction to getting booted from the ballot.

“I think its ridiculous,” Schock was quoted as saying by the Journal Star on February 2, 2001 — eleven years ago today. “It shows Rhonda Hunt’s true character, that she is willing to use ruthless tactics and try to keep me off the ballot, and to stop the people of Peoria from having a choice of who they want to represent them on the School Board.”

According to the paper, “[Schock] said these were small mistakes, and he doesn’t think it jeopardizes the integrity of his ballots. ‘It was not intentional in any way. I am new to the political process. The technicality they have got me on was human error. I think it’s ridiculous. This is why people don’t get involved in politics. I think it is a disgrace in American politics.'”

Fast-forward to February 2, 2012. Schock is now the incumbent U.S. Representative from the 18th Congressional District, and he is being challenged in the primary by Darrel Miller. Some friends of Schock contested Miller’s petitions, and today Miller was tossed from the ballot:

Last month, Central Illinois Republican officials Michael Bigger of Wyoming, Ill., and Katherine Coyle of Peoria filed official challenges to Miller’s candidacy with the State Board of Elections. Bigger said he pursued the objection independently, not at the request of Schock’s campaign, after noticing several signatures collected by Miller came from Schock’s “close, personal friends.” He said that made him suspicious.

Miller had expressed confidence that enough of his 730 signatures would survive to give him the required 600. But a records exam and subsequent review found Miller’s petition contained only 583 valid signatures, 17 short of the minimum requirement. […]

Miller told WJBC on Thursday that he was certain his signatures were from registered voters who live in the 18th District. But Miller said the board’s questions centered on the “genuineness” of his signatures – specifically the 80 or so that were printed names, not traditional signatures. He said he lost around 50 signatures only because they were printed. […]

Miller represented himself during Thursday’s session in Springfield, and he admitted he was in “over his head.” His advice to anyone else looking to run for Congress: get three times the number of required signatures, to be safe.

Technicalities. Small mistakes. Someone new to the political process and in “over his head.” Sound familiar?

Miller was a gracious loser by all accounts. It could be that he’s older, wiser, and more circumspect in his speech than a 19-year-old kid. Or maybe he’s just accepted the fact that politics is a dirty business.

But what does Schock think about this? Surely his friends told him they were going to do this. Why didn’t he stop them from disgracing American politics? Doesn’t he think this stops the people of the 18th Congressional District from having a choice of who they want to represent them? Doesn’t he think this keeps good people from running for office? Doesn’t he think his tacit approval of these “ruthless tactics” reveal his “true character”? Or has he changed his mind over the past 11 years?

“Schock’s campaign declined to comment on the state board’s decision.” (Journal Star)

My suggestion to Miler: Run as a write-in.художник на икониИкони на светци

Blogosphere

Another successful Blogger Bash in the books

2 Comments

Every fifth Tuesday of the month, there’s a Blogger Bash, and this month was no exception. Everyone met at Kelleher’s Irish Pub on Water Street to eat, drink, and mingle. Attending were Chef Kevin (Chef Kevin’s Culinary Rants and Raves), friend-of-blog and frequent commenter Scott Hay, Willa Lucas (Ramble On), David P. Jordan (Peoria Station), Leslie (Walk of Shame), Lily (Peoria in Pictures), City Councilman Gary Sandberg, Peoria Election Commission Executive Director Tom Bride, and me. Kelleher’s proprietor and State Senate candidate Pat Sullivan even joined the fun. Here are some pictures:

David P. Jordan and Willa Lucas
Scott Hay and Chef Kevin
Lily and Leslie
Tom Bride and Gary Sandberg

Notably absent: Billy Dennis (Peoria Pundit) and Randy Emert (Peoria Anti-Pundit).

If you didn’t or couldn’t make it this time, mark your calendar now for the next Blogger Bash! It will be Tuesday, May 29, at Richard’s on Main, below the Apollo Theater. Hope to see you there!

City Council, City of Peoria

How many different funding sources can we tap for the Wonderful Development?

19 Comments

The City Council is poised to add another funding source to the downtown hotel project next Tuesday. Keep in mind the funding sources already tapped for this project:

  • HIZ TIF (10/28/2008) — First, they created the Hospitality Improvement Zone TIF (tax increment financing) district. This happened in October 2008 while the mayor and council were still telling the public there was no hotel project being proposed. It was designed primarily as an economic incentive for the Wonderful Development.
  • HIZ BDD (11/10/2008) — Following close on the heels of the TIF was the HIZ Business District Development (BDD) Plan. BDDs are like TIFs except that, whereas TIFs use property tax money, BDDs use sales taxes. In March 2009, under this BDD, the council established an extra 1% sales tax within the BDD boundaries to be used for “capital improvements related to new or existing hotels.”
  • General Obligation Bonds (pending) — These bonds, which have been approved for various amounts between 2008 and 2011 but have not been sold yet, will supposedly be paid back by the project via property taxes plus the HIZ TIF increment and BDD sales tax explained above. However, since they’re general obligation bonds and not revenue bonds, that means that the full faith and credit of the City of Peoria is backing them. In other words, if the project doesn’t pay for itself, the City’s general fund has to pony up the money. That’s money that we need for police, fire, public works, etc. It’s also the fund that has been bailing out the failed Midtown Plaza TIF.
  • Post Employment Benefits Reserve (11/1/2011) — Under the terms of the latest (i.e. third) redevelopment agreement, the City of Peoria will loan the developer (Mr. Matthews) $7 million for 25 years at 7% interest (but the first two years will be interest-free) because he couldn’t get all the private financing he needed. What is the way of finding the right lender? Where is the City getting this money to loan? From the Post Employment Benefits Reserve, an underfunded pot of money set aside to pay health benefit obligations to future retirees.

One more thing about those general obligation bonds: they’re supposed to be for $29 million, but the City would actually have to issue bonds for $32.5 million. Why? Because the money is needed for construction, but during construction the property is not generating any income to make bond payments. So between the time the bonds are issued and when payments start, the interest that’s accrued gets added to the principal. It’s called “capitalized interest,” and if you’ve had student loans, you’re probably familiar with it.

The City has found a way not to capitalize the interest on those bonds. They’ve found another pot of money they can use to make the bond payments during construction. Where did they find it? In the Southtown TIF District. Since the Southtown TIF is adjacent to the HIZ TIF, money can be siphoned off transferred between them for allowable expenses. Financing is an allowable expense in this case.

Southtown is the City’s very first TIF district, established in 1978. TIFs are only supposed to last 23 years, but in 2001 the Council extended it another 12 years, so it’s not due to expire until 2013 now. But the City could retire the TIF sooner. I mean, since they have such a surplus of money in that TIF, they could just end it now and let that money be divvied up proportionally among the affected taxing bodies, including District 150 and Peoria County.

But instead, the City is going to take part of that money and not even use it to improve infrastructure in Southtown or add any value to Southtown. They’re going to use it to make bond payments on an ill-advised hotel project in downtown Peoria — a behemoth that already has three other public funding sources.

This plan will do one thing, though. It will give the council the opportunity to pretend they’re fiscally responsible. “Look at what we’re doing,” they’ll say. “We’re saving $3.5 million!” It’s like going to McDonald’s and ordering a Big Mac, french fries, apple pie… and a diet Coke. “See? I’m watching my weight! I’m drinking a diet Coke!”

I suppose it’s better than nothing.

City Council, City of Peoria

Wonderful Development deadline to be extended yet again

19 Comments

You’ll never guess what’s on the City Council agenda for next Tuesday, 24 January 2012. It’s a request to extend the deadline on the downtown hotel project yet again. Yes. “Time is of the essence,” Councilman Spain breathlessly implored in December 2008 when this erstwhile clandestine project was first revealed to the public, be sure you lean to use social media to get sales. Now, three-plus years and as many redevelopment agreements later, we’re told “it would be a rush to have all the documents agreed upon by January 31.” Indeed.

So the new “deadline” is going to be February 29. But don’t hold your breath. The council request not-so-subtly implies that even that may not be enough time. “Even with a February 29 deadline,” it concludes, “there is much work to be accomplished before our financial advisor can be directed to move forward with marketing the bonds.” Long about February 21, you can reasonably expect the council agenda to include another deadline extension.

One wonders why the council doesn’t save itself some time and just set the deadline for a more realistic timeframe … like the fifth of never, for instance. Or the year 3000. Because it’s quite clear that the council has no intention of ever enforcing any deadline at all. The deadlines have all been a farce — a pallid attempt to convince Peoria citizens that the Council is being a good steward of the public’s money.