If there’s one phrase I could erase from all discussions about Peoria, it would be this one: “Well, isn’t it better to do something? Something is better than nothing!” I hear this all the time. Here are just a few high-profile examples:
- Regarding the proposed downtown museum: If we don’t put a museum there, it will just be a big hole forever! Isn’t it better to put something there? Something is better than nothing!
- Regarding the proposed charter school for District 150: What, should we just do nothing to improve the schools? At least by putting this charter school in place, we’ll be doing something. Something is better than nothing!
- Regarding plea bargains for murderers: We know he murdered a man in cold blood, but the jury might not believe our witnesses, so we’re going to let him plea down to an illegal weapon possession charge, so at least he’ll do a few years in the clink. Something is better than nothing!
- Regarding our new token recycling program: Of course they’ve reduced the number of pickups and you have to rent a special container now for no justifiable reason, but at least it’s something! Something is better than nothing!
It’s gotten so pervasive that I think they ought to make it the official tagline for the city of Peoria. I’ve gone ahead and added it to the logo, as you can see. Doesn’t it make you proud to be a Peorian?
My guess is that most people in Peoria would not want that to be our tagline. But why not? Especially when so many things around here are justified on that basis, why be ashamed to shout it from the rooftops?
I think the answer is obvious…. But not obvious enough to keep people from using it as an argument for their pet projects as if it were some sort of fabulous selling point. I would be embarrassed to try and sell some project or defend some decision of which I was ostensibly proud by declaring, “Hey, it’s better than nothing!”
But for those who are enamored with this bit of rhetoric, consider this:
- Something is not always better than nothing. It depends on what that “something” is. Two pennies for a tip is not better than no tip at all — it’s a deliberate insult to the waiter or waitress. Projects like MidTown Plaza are not better than nothing; they’re worse. Now instead of the problems of vacant property, an unstable neighborhood, and a high crime rate, we get to have all of those things PLUS millions of dollars in TIF debt that we pay off with money that could have been used for police officers and road improvements. If we don’t seriously evaluate the “something,” we may end up worse off than we started.
- We should be aiming higher than “better than nothing.” Why are we content with “better than nothing” in this city, anyway? Why aren’t we shooting for the best, the highest, the top? Who has bewitched us into having expectations so low that the only thing lower is … nothing? Is this what passes for pride in Peoria: “better than nothing”?
Speaking as a life-long Peorian, I think we sell ourselves short in this city. I think we settle for mediocrity. I think we expect too little. And I think if our city is ever going to turn around and grow, we need to change that paradigm.
Mediocrity……………..
Nice job on the graphics. ;P
Why not run for office than CJ?
Bravo. Well said sir. Time for a change around the horseshoe. Keep Sandberg, boot everyone else. Especially Spain and Turner.
You really nailed it toady, CJ. That does seem to be the mantra, “we’ve got to do something,” never mind if its wrong.
Mouse: ‘never mind if it’s wrong’ …… and we can’t afford it. We will just use the taxpayer credit card and sell a bond to cover the cost.
Politics. Consider this…………
If an elected official does not perform as he or she should what can we do about it? Vote them OUT of office [this works at least in theory]! This is why we have elections, etc.
I know I am over simplifying things, but what are the chances that the people of Peoria County get the opportunity to ‘vote out’ the museum tax [I’m sorry, I meant the ‘all-purpose’ sales tax]? I know that Sud O. Nym and I both stand against the museum, etc, but the museum is only one example of Peoria City/County mis-management.
What can/should we do about this?
I love it!
Maybe the city will spend another 30 grand to have a new logo made to reflect this bold new statement.
NV:
You can help to get me elected in Peoria County District 3! 😉 You know that I would continue to stand against the museum folly!
Latest update — “To keep the ball rolling” on the museum project and to be voted on at the 10 December 2009 Peoria County Board Meeting
(1) Engineering Agreement for Environmental Assessment on the Museum Property
… not exceed $40,000 for a Phase I (not to exceed $6,000) and Phase II (not to exceed $34,000) Environmental Studies for the 2/3 of parcel that the County would need to take ownership via land transfer from the City;
(2) Engineering Agreement for a peer review on the parking deck design for the Museum Project. Cost: $100,000
Meanwhile, the Museum Group is still not officially formed, the money has not been raised from private sources as promised, the bankrupt state of Illinois is giving another $5M for which the state has no money so debt will be needed to contribute that money to the pot, the endowment is underfunded, no land transfer, no redevelopment agreement among the parties involved, no signed contract with IMAX and so it goes.
The County has incurred most costs for Mark Johnson’s services as well as the specialized legal council (which if we do build this project is regrettably probably worth the money spent so we do not get into an even more precarious situation) perhaps those costs will be refunded from the tax which starts Jan 1, 2010 and becomes payable a quarter after collection. Taxpayers are still paying for these expenses.
Meanwhile, local unemployment stands around 11%, the economy has not recovered – you know the information as well as I ….. more coal for the taxpayers’ stockings.
Karrie, I wish I lived in Peoria–I would encourage all who do live in District 3 to vote for Karrie.
I erred–I would like to vote for Karrie but I don’t wish I lived in Peoria–I love living in West Peoria.
Good commentary, C.J.
Taxes are going way up in District 150, a major high school is being closed against the will of the public, the jail can’t hold the prisoners, armed robbers are everywhere — is Peoria better than nothing? You wonder…
Speaking of robbers: on the PJS site–Dave Koehler fought off a robber (armed) at his Koehler’s bakery. He gave the robber the money and, when the robber wanted his cell phone, Dave fought him off and the robber ran–not caught yet.
Lake Peoria, where the men are average, the women are plain, and mediocrity is above average. It’s better than nothing.
chomp, chomp
smack, smack
slurp, slurp
…enjoying the show from Ann Arbor, Michigan
“Taxes are going way up in District 150”
It’s just 30.5 cents. I am sure the museum supporters can support this minor increase as well. Think about the children. It’s better than nothing.
*passing a napkin to Chase*
Sharon: Thank you for your support! 🙂
ann arbor is a whore. go bucks.
To bad Beth Akeson did not get elected she wanted Peoria to aim higher and see the bigger picture.
Our cuurent councilman insured that we get a powerhouse in the East Bluff but as you say “Hey, it’s better than nothing!”
I also wish I could vote for Karrie! Her tireless research and attention to detail are qualities that appear to be sorely lacking in the present council.
It is time for a change.
The city and District 150 seem to have the same problem. There are problems that need solving–we all agree on the problems. When the decision-makers choose solutions, they look only at the advantages of their choices. They seem to be incapable of making two lists–to include the disadvantages. These decision-makers do not want to appear to be negative. Then others call attention to the negatives (often the longer and/or more significant list)–and they get the label, etc.–and we are asked, “Can’t you ever look at the bright side?” We don’t have to do so–the decision-makers shine their light on all that’s good and leave the rest in darkness–(secrets and cover-ups).
PS–Amendment: They shine their light on all they want us to think is good–good PR.
Carmen: Thank you for your support! 🙂
Yes sometimes something is better then nothing. Peoria is not as bad as some of you make it out to be.
CJ,
Great, great post.
The Journal Star interviewed me last spring when I ran for city council and in their April 2, 2009 endorsement of my opponent they quote me in the editorial as saying:
“I’m sick of the ‘it’s better than nothing’ excuse. I think Peoria can be more.”
It appears as if the vast majority of Peorians have been conditioned for years to accept less in city policy and city building and believe a higher standard is reserved for someplace other than here. Too bad this attitude prevails and directs city policy.
If we continue to build a less than average city (which is what we are doing) guess what…we will get a less than average place. Unfortunately, you are correct- the motto fits.
Beth,
Can we count on you to run at-large in 2011?
I think there needs to be an effort to field 3 or 4 ‘new urbanist’ / basic services types for the at large positions. Have them run as a block.
Mahkno: That is a fantastic idea! 🙂
Well said, Mahkno.
Here is a sobering article …. it appears that in the near and long term, those who are labeled non-progressive complainers, pro-savings crowd (critical of taking on more public debt for wants) — Peoria area will not even be able to afford “Better than nothing.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?sq=us debt&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print
“What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter. The United States is not only not saving nuts, it’s eating the ones left over from the last winter.” WILLIAM H. GROSS
Oh, if our elected officials only followed the first course of action rather than the second. Regrettably feds, state and local spending is out of control and for what ……? Better than nothing! 🙁
I think that it would be nice to just see an actual new urbanist movement at the community level and then attempt to field someone for city council. There has to be community demand before any revitalization comes to the core neighborhoods in Peoria.
I don’t see how a candidate can be new urbanism/basic services those philosophies are somewhat in opposition to one another.
11Bravo, I see no conflict at all. Please explain where you see one?
In the long run, having a New Urbanist landscape would be more cost effective to city budgets than the current environment. Urban density saves money, is healthier, and more environmentally friendly. All of which saves residents money in the long run.
Managing and promoting a new urbanist approach and all of the associated enforcement of stricter codes and planning requires resources that could otherwise be spent on essential services. It essentially advocates that government become more involved with developers which is what many “essential services” promoters seem to be opposed to.
Nice job. I am a die hard lib and rarely agree with your opinion, but this hits the mark. My suggestions for Peoria’s slogan: “Peoria,…it’s good enough” or “Peoria, It’ll do” or, “Peoria, at least it’s not Lowpoint”. You have to love settling for mediocrity!
Or, what about: “Peoria, See you at the buffet”
Now all we need are people to actually want to live in the neighborhoods the new urbanist movement is targeting. Once there is actually a demand for new businesses etc… in the core neighborhoods you will see new urbanism happen on its own. As people move into the neighborhood there will be demand for businesses and services and a reason for main st., for example, to develop. As main st develops more people will want to move into the neighborhood so they are within walking distance of businesses they want to patronize housing values will go up and the neighborhoods will stablize. Without demand your just creating building codes and rediculous “grass root” campaigns.
Cj,
I agree with all of your statements except one. I know many people have been complaining about PDC”s recycling plan and I was prepared to find fault with it just because of the misleading statements PDC made during debate on the hazardous waste landfill.
Frankly, when they talked of all the jobs that could be lost, I kept asking myself, why isn’t this local company hauling our garbage? That would help cover the lost jobs.
So, I’m glad to see them get the contract, although I’ve never been unhappy about WM. Except I have wished they could find a more efficient way to run all the trucks around town. I think of all the fuel wasted and pollution spewed.
I think PDC’s recycling proposal is more efficient. The recycling truck will come through once a month rather than twice, saving fuel and lowering emissions. The large toter should hold everything – but I will probably have to rent two of them because I recycle a lot.
Instead of paying the 3.25 every month, I’ll pay a one-time rental fee. That will be a savings.
Instead of carrying numerous tubs out to the curve, I can now push a toter out to the alley.
Instead of keeping the uncovered tubs in the garage until recycling day, I can leave the toter outside next to the garbage toter. The rain won’t soak everything through and the wind won’t toss papers and cereal boxes down the street.
I’m missing the point as to why this is such a bad plan. I think it sounds better, from my humble POV.
Tulip: The requirements of a wheeled cart and a $50 refundable fee are disincentives to recycling. You don’t put these kinds of barriers to entry on behaviors you want to encourage. Special containers and fees are not required for garbage or lawn waste. Why are they required for recycling? How will that encourage non-recyclers to start recycling? Answer: it won’t. It placates those who are already committed to recycling, while still incentivizing people to just throw everything away because it’s easier and cheaper. The little village of Peoria Heights has better recycling service than that.
But it’s good enough for Peoria because… it’s better than nothing, of course!
11bravo said:
First of all, new urbanist codes are not any more difficult to enforce than Euclidean zoning codes. The same processes for enforcement are followed regardless of how the code is written.
Secondly, city planning and code enforcement are essential services. So even if it did take more time, it wouldn’t be taking anything away from essential services.
Thirdly, it does not advocate “that government become more involved with developers.” If anything, form-based codes are designed so that developers can spend less time with government, provided they abide by the code.