All the City of Peoria district representative positions are up for election Tuesday, but only three are contested. First District Councilman Clyde Gulley and Fourth District Councilman Bill Spears are unopposed. Here are my endorsements for the other three offices:
- Second District: Curphy Smith — When incumbent Barbara Van Auken ran for office four years ago, she promised to have a more inclusive leadership style than her predecessor, Marcella Teplitz. Regrettably, that has not come to pass. Secrecy on the council has gotten worse, and Van Auken is right in the thick of it. From the Marriott Hotel plan to spend $40 million that was kept secret from the public until the eleventh hour and passed nearly unanimously, to plans for cutting the city’s budget deficit that were kept secret even from other council members, Van Auken has not distinguished herself as “inclusive.” Her other campaign promises — restoring Fire Station 11 to “full service” and eliminating the $6 per month garbage fee — have also gone unfulfilled, although Van Auken supporters will point out that she followed the advice of the Fire Chief on the former issue. She said she supported the Renaissance Park plan, but after doing a traffic study on Main Street, she asked for no funding in 2009 to actually make improvements. It should come as no surprise that some of her biggest supporters also favor no changes to Main Street.
Beyond that, I’m disappointed in Van Auken’s voting record. She has consistently voted to make exceptions to the Land Development Code that favors developers over residents. She has gotten few concessions from institutions wishing to expand, whether it be Bradley University encroaching into the Arbor District or Methodist Hospital taking over Hamilton Boulevard and inching closer to the Randolph-Roanoke District. A publicly-funded arbor is little compensation for destabilizing an older, mature neighborhood and worsening traffic issues by allowing two important thoroughfares to be vacated. She has nullified two historic preservation requests because she didn’t like the timing of the requests. She ran on a fiscally-conservative, essential-services-first platform, yet supports the proposed museum, the Marriott Hotel plan, the Civic Center expansion, and other so-called “progressive” issues.
Curphy Smith is not the ideal candidate. He doesn’t have the grasp on city issues that I would like to see. But he’s open-minded and willing to listen to both sides of an issue in an unprejudiced way. From what I’ve observed when he was an officer in the Uplands Residential Association, he was not afraid to bring controversial ideas to the table. He could have a spirited debate, but not hold a grudge against those who didn’t vote his way. Since he’s a banker, he would also bring his financial skills to the table, which will offset the loss of Bob Manning who isn’t running for reelection. The second district needs a change, and Smith has a lot of potential. He is endorsed.
- Third District: Beth Akeson — I wrote a lengthy endorsement before the primary election in support of Beth Akeson (read it here), so I’ll just reiterate my summary statement here:
Motivational speaker Joel Barker once said, “Vision without action is a dream. Action without vision is simply passing the time. Action with vision is making a positive difference.” This is what sets Beth Akeson apart from the other candidates: She has that rare combination of action with vision. And she will make a positive difference for the citizens of Peoria, especially in the third district. […]
I sincerely believe that Beth Akeson is the candidate that will make the biggest positive difference for her district and the city at large.
- Fifth District: Dan Irving — There’s no incumbent in this race, as Patrick Nichting is pursuing the City Treasurer’s job instead. So the candidates are Dan Irving and Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald, both of whom ran unsuccessfully in the last at-large election (coming in sixth and ninth, respectively).
I endorsed Irving in the at-large election because of “the priority he puts on core services (fire, police) and his support for older neighborhoods (through the Heart of Peoria Plan and other initiatives).” I haven’t heard him talk about those issues so much now that he’s running for fifth district, which is understandable. The Heart of Peoria Plan doesn’t cover the fifth district, and the economy is quite a bit different these days, so more focus is put on economic development.
Both candidates favor the museum tax and the $40 million subsidy for building a Marriott Hotel, even though neither of these are core services and are hardly affordable in the city’s current economic condition. That’s disappointing, but not surprising coming from the fifth district.
Cassel-Fitzgerald, just like in the at-large campaign, sounds more like she’s running for school board rather than city council. In fact, education is one of the main planks in her platform, even though the city can do little about those issues.
Overall, Irving has a better grasp on city issues. Two years later, I still find him to be informed, level-headed, and realistic in his approach. He is endorsed.
Van Auken has not kept a single promise and by her own standards she does not merit re-election.
In 2005, she said she would:
abolish the garbage tax
lower crime
protect older neighborhoods
favor essential services in the budget
restore Fire Sta 11 to full service
LISTEN
be inclusive
support New Urbanism approaches
revitalize Main Street
She failed on every one. There is no rationalizing needed…she failed on every one that she, herself, raised as a key issue in 2005. Was she a demagogue in 2005, or did she just fail on each score? Regardless, the results are clear. She failed on every score.
CJ – These people are fortunate indeed to have your endorsement. I’m sure that does not come easy – and I mean it in a good way. 😉
“Who the Hell is Curphy Smith?” I asked that question at the beginning of the campaign. I’ve since met the guy. He’s seems like a nice guy and seems to possess inteligence. However, I still don’t know who he is. I have no idea what he stands for and what he will do if elected. His campaign has really failed to get any details out, other than trying to make him out to be an anti-BVA. While I know BVA has had her share of detractors, my experiences with her have been good. I don’t agree with her on everything, but I beleive the 2nd District needs her knowledge and experience. I wish Smith well and will work with him if he is elected, but right now I’d prefer the devil I know as opposed to the one I don’t.
Here ‘ya go, Conrad!
http://pundit.blogpeoria.com/2009/03/04/an-interview-with-curphy-smith-candidate-for-peoria-city-council-2nd-district/
Figures CJ would sit on Curp’s latest mailing. Curph seems to have started negative campaigning over someone who was a coward for a flier. Or perhaps Curp’s recent mailing indicates his camp were the one’s who wrote the first flier just to make news. Afterall, I received the flier Tuesday & it was in a Curph mailing again on Saturday. This all had to be planned well in advance. I am not comfortable with a banker being at the helm anyway.
Perhaps the LDC needs changing. For example, a business on Main would have needed awnings that extend past the sidewalk into the street. I perfectly understand some of the exceptions made to the LDC.
We do have full fire & police staffing & am more comfortable than 4 years ago.
You have got to be kidding “open mind.” You purport to have an open mind, but you make a bigoted, judgemental stereotyping of all “bankers.” And Curphy would not be at the “helm” anyway, but rather one of ten council members.
Please post your list of approved professions you would consider for city council.
Believe me-I am open. I dont think banks are very supportive to the mortgage market mess we are in now. This is a whole topic by itself before someone like yourself can see the light.
CJ: You will be correct on one out of three; thought you wre smarter than that, or were you just currying votes for Akeson and Smith?
What is with all this struggle about what kind of city Peoria is? It’s a river town. There’s a very rich, deep and sordid history here. My family has only been here since late ’05 and, ironically, when we moved a friend from Oshkosh who had also migrated North said that Peoria was a good city to be FROM.
Peoria, IL will never ever be a cultural mecca. It’s not a destination. It’s a stop off. I wish that it was the Children’s Museum that was going into the Sears block. I lived here almost 3 years before I knew anything about Glen Park.
Peoria could have a solid reputation as a strong working class town that takes care if it’s own.
Take a look at Decatur…that’s what happens when a city fails to address what is really eating away at it’s foundation.
“open mind” give us a break…because someone here works at a local bank they are unfit to serve on the city council??…you are out of your (closed) mind
CJ – I’m disappointed you didn’t blog about the scathing anti-BVA flyer, as you had promised. Too bad, because I would have liked to have seen your take, plus those of your commenters.
Perhaps this will help, or perhaps it will lead to more unwarranted attacks, who knows. I met Curphy late last year. He called me as many candidates do to get my thoughts on issues in the city. I did my usual interview thing trying to get to know him, see where he stood, viewpoints, qualifications, etc. What surprised me is that he asked me to chair his campaign. I was recommended by an odd assortment of well respected individuals. I did not answer immediately, knowing my many other committments and the need to check him out to see if this was someone that I would back. After doing some research and checking with people whose opinions I valued, I signed on. In doing so, I would lend my own name and hopefully positive reputation in the community for the work I have done thus far. I find it absurd that after being accused from everything from writing the journal star editorial, renting a bus (that by the way goes to and from Chicago and Bradley at least a couple of times a day), illegal election practices, and now smearing my own name to be used in a flyer as some type of red herring. Some folks have too much time on their hands.
This is what I have found about Curphy Smith. He does not carry some of the baggage and allegiences by many of the former councilpersons for our district. This makes him open to meeting and listening too a number of ideas from a number of people. I would guess that this would be a threat to those who wish to “stay in power” whatever that means…. I have watched him interact with a variety of people. His style is not as aggressive or abrasive as some, but I do think that he will work hard. We have had a number of loud, vocal leaders, perhaps a quiet voice of reason would be a postive, effective change.
We have met with business leaders, neighborhood leaders, residents in general. We have walked the district. literally every precint. There are a lot of hard working people all over the district that are simply not having needs met. Yes, we have met with Moss, Uplands, and Arbor District residents, altough not what I would call the old guard, but average citizens, folks who just go about their business of raising families, working, and some specialized involvement here and there. They are the quiet voices that are often overshadowed by much more boisterous neighbors. And yes, we have met with Bradley Students, sometimes offering suggestions on how they can be better neighbors, but also listening to how they are also being attacked, as well as goals and aspirations. There are two or more sides to every story. I am concerned that only one is being heard.
I, personally, am deeply concerned that the actions of BVA that night that so many want to argue about or worse, justify, has damaged relations between BU students and the neighborhoods, perhaps beyond repair with at least the vocal ones. That is a tradegy. I think both sides would be greatly benefit by working together, not against one another. Listening to residents rip on students is disturbing and it is even more distrubing to hear our friends’ behavior towards them directly. Also understood is the desire by the neighborhood folks, to some simple piece and quiet and simple respect. These are obtainable objectives, but not under the current leadership. Additionally I have been discouraged by the continued division among neighborhoods and businesses by our current councilperson. The north-south city debate is alive and well within the Second District.
Taking $50,000 in lighting funds from one neighborhood and giving it an project in the “more favored side of the W. Bluff” Attending a meeting in the W. Bluff and hearing how the city will plant trees for them, replace ornamental lighting at no cost the residents and like, when you can’t get adequate lighting in high crime areas is frustrating at best.
And yes the Arbor. While not speaking currently for my association, we did give the Arbor District a gift upon the dedication of the Arbor. We supported our friends, but in doing so, did not support the funding source used for this project. It is discouraging that our friends from this area do not stand beside us with things that we NEED, not want, but NEED. We have to look for grants for projects within our neighborhoods, or are required to go after special assessments if want improvements. Generally we do things ourselves, partnering with some great organizations, businesses, and individuals, County, state and Federal officials and programs. Curphy has seen the need for looking at other funding sources. He has met with sevaral groups of people that do not feel they are receiving good representation and has some skelton plans being batted around to make things a little better for all concerned. I don’t believe that we have failed to get the details out regarding where he stands on issues, The second mailer addresses stances on a number of things. In listening to people througout the district, there is much discussion about projects. But projects are not what is plaguing the second district. It is relationships, it is respect. Nothing verifies that more, in my personal opinion, that some of the hatred spewed during this campaign by residents, especially on the blogs. I find it ironic that a recent letter makes a personal attack in one area on a candidate, but completely ignores the same, much more extensive behavior in the candidate supported.
There has been a comment about the negatively of the final mailer. The Main street project should have been close to being finished now, given the funding which was in place, both public and private. The public funding went elsewhere and private funding, left due to conflicts with our representative. Most certainly I have been supportive of the Triangle project, but it is frustrating that the surrounding neighborhood is ignored. We have stated flat out, that no one is going to leave their cars to shop, when parts of McClure are a hot mess with gangs, guns, drugs, and assaults. That is most certainly reasonable. The Lippmans’ building, what should be a crown jewel of private investment and thus tax revenues, is slated to be sold to a non profit for a rehab center for adults with disabilites. Now our area is not a NIMBY type of area meaning it will go in, but we are concerned about the lack of tax dollars being produced. Additionally the safety of the patients if crime continues to escalate. The promises made have not been fullfilled. I worked on that campaign, remember….
In talking with several other neighborhood leaders, concern about the continued rifts being fostered further over the past few years and heightened now, are a detriment to our area. Only by working together can positive changes made, but that means that other neighborhoods, besides our area, need to look beyond it’s borders to what is postive for the district and for the city.
In looking at potential crime solutions, we had discussions with street patrol officers. BVA’s endorsement occurred only because the membership decided this year that the exec team would pick who they endorsed. I have not met one regular cop that has voiced support for that endorsement. I am suposing that if it had gone to a full vote, BVA would not have been endorsed due to her actions with the Bradley Police Department. Resource needs and manpower are NOT currently being met.
Curphy does not have the advantage of a few years of experience on the council, neither did BVA when she started. She had Gary giving her facts and details, and according to his endorsement of Curphy, has also been disappointed. Few truly know what the job entails. I think I have a good idea, given my frequent involvment with council members, and governmental issues. I have placed faith in Curphy Smith, for what that is worth to others, I don’t know, But I believe that he can do a good job and urge you to vote for him tomorrow. Good night, it’s been a long road on this campaign in such a short job. To my friends, I sincerely hope that you will work with us on eliminting the division among us.