Today is the deadline for the City to file information with the Surface Transportation Board in the pending adverse discontinuance proceeding. The City filed their information this morning, basically just reiterating what was said at the last council meeting and informing the STB of the 9-2 vote in favor of CIRY as the carrier.
However, most curious was this statement (emphasis mine):
The Village of Peoria Heights concurs in the action voted by the City of Peoria. The Cities continue to support reconfiguration of rail service over the Branch whereby:
(1) Carver and any other shipper located near the north end of the Branch would be served from the west via CIRY’s connection with Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) at Pioneer Junction;
(2) O’Brien Steel Service Co, (O’Brien Steel) and any other shipper located near the south end of the Branch would be served from the east via CIRY’s connection with Tazewell & Peoria Railroad, Inc. (T&P); and
(3) the segment of the Branch between the facilities of those shippers, on which there is no traffic, would be converted to recreational trail use.
That’s kind of funny, because I just read in the paper that the Village wants to put a trolley on that line, not a trail. Also, no Village representative certified the filing with their signature, and the Village wasn’t even served with a copy of the filing!
So I called Peoria Heights and talked to Administrator Tom Horstmann. I read him the STB filing and he said that it is not accurate, the Village does not concur with Peoria’s action, and he advised me to send a copy of the filing to Mayor Allen, which I did. I have a feeling the City will be getting an unhappy phone call.
To claim the Village’s concurrency in a legal document to the STB without the Village’s consent is an unconscionable oversight at best. It’s pretty apparent that there is no communication between the City and the Village on this issue, which is surprising considering how much is riding on the Village’s commitment to this project. Most of the section that the City wants to turn into a trail is not located in the City, but in the Village. Furthermore, the Village owns the trackage that is within their municipal boundaries. If the Village isn’t on board with the City’s plans, the City better start considering Plan B.
In the meantime, the City obviously needs to retract their erroneous statement to the STB. And since the City has demonstrated a lack of interest in communicating with the Heights, the Village probably should start communicating their intentions regarding the Kellar Branch directly with the STB.
UPDATE: City of Peoria attorney Randy Ray says, “Our STB filing is being amended to reflect that Peoria Heights does not agree with the City’s position. They wish to take no position on the matter before the STB.”
When I talked to Mayor Allen earlier tonight, he explained that since Peoria Heights doesn’t receive any freight, they didn’t feel the need to take a position on which carrier would be used on the line at this time. Also, as I stated in the comments section, Allen believes this was just an honest mistake.
It’s OK to lie if its helps the trail.
the ends justify the means.
The trail will bring paradise on earth right here to Peoria. We can’t risk losing it over a little thing like
THE TRUTH.
CJ: Deterioration is getting lower — personal attacks on you and other rail advocates and now this action. Are we at the bottom of the barrel yet or is there more swill to come?
Jesus, Karrie, you are starting to sound as bad as the people you deride.
This obviously looks bad, but I have a question: Has the Village Board taken an official position (vote) on this issue in the past? Has it cast a vote since that would reverse that decision? I don’t think that just because the Administrator or even the Mayor says something, it makes it the official position of the Village.
I may be wrong on legal grounds. Even if I am right, it might still be the shitty thing to do. This whole thing might have been written before the newspaper article. While Mayor Allen’s wavering has been noted in recent weeks, why haven’t we seen some official action by the Village Board? Last I checked, Peoria Heights wasn’t a dictatorship.
Final question(s) for CJ: Is PH a party to the adverse discountinuance? Do they retain their own counsel? Do they file their own response?
The Village is a party to the Adverse Discontinuance (which was initiated in 2004 under a different mayor) and is represented by the same lawyer (Thomas McFarland out of Chicago). They have not as yet filed their own response separate from the City.
But what sets this document apart is that it says, “The Village of Peoria Heights concurs in the action voted by the City of Peoria,” referring specifically to Tuesday’s council vote. I don’t believe the Village trustees have even met since Tuesday’s vote to concur or oppose the City’s vote. They certainly weren’t consulted for their opinion on the matter. The bottom line is, the City shouldn’t presume to speak for the Village without contacting them.
Even if there’s no legal culpability here, it certainly was not a smart move by a City that says it really wants a trail. They should be friendly to the Village, since the Heights’ opposition would most certainly stymie the whole thing.
Agreed, CJ, but wasn’t Tuesday’s vote really just a re-affirmation of the same position the City has had for a decade? Their position hasn’t really changed, and without an official vote by the Village, I see no problem here.
Let me ask you this: This more recent version of this debate has been going on for at least 4 months. Allen started wavering a few months back, too. How many times has the Village met since then? Why haven’t they brought up this issue? Maybe it is just the Mayor who is pro-rail.
Another idea, CJ: Why don’t you call each of the Village’s board members and take a nose count. Or maybe PregoMan (a village resident, I think) can.
Municipal government works in a very particular way and just because the Mayor wants a trolley, doesn’t make it official. Personally, I think they are all wimpy. The rail itself does little for Peoria Heights proper, other than the Cohen Building. Now, I would argue that in a regional sense, the Heights is much better served by Peoria having good rail access. Y’all are latching on to the trolley idea simply because it helps your side by keeping the tracks in place. Otherwise, you might label it a boondoggle. It is tourism-related (or at least spoken of so by Allen) just as much as a trail (secondarily it might be considered mass transit).
Just Some Guy: You make a good case, and one that the City will likely make in their own defense. But I still believe it’s a misrepresentation of the Village; as you said, the City was reaffirming their commitment to this course of action, and the filing implies that the Village concurs with that vote of reaffirmation, which is not true. The Village has not reaffirmed their commitment to this.
Not much to do tonight, so I’ll just keep responding :). Again, I am pro-rail (slightly) but just find the passion on both sides so fascinating.
Of course, the City doesn’t need to assume that the Village needs to reaffirm its position every time the City reaffirms its position. If the Village were to reaffirm its vote, would that mean the City would need to do the same on its end? Where does this stop?
Next time you talk to Mayor Allen or Administrator whatever, ask them if they have EVER contacted either Ardis or Randy Oliver to express their disagreement. I doubt they ever had. Until they do, and really until there is an official vote of the Board, the City is probably right to state what they have.
In fact, you are likely the one who has misrepresented the City’s “misrepresentation.”
Just Some Guy: Ironically, I was on the phone with Mayor Allen when you sent your last message through. In fact, he read it to me over the phone! His answer is that, not only has he contacted Ardis and Oliver, he actually just spoke to Ardis this past Monday for 45 minutes in person. He expressed his concerns and the fact that he was pursuing the trolley. He said Administrator Horstmann has also spoken to Oliver and City Attorney Randy Ray several times. He also agreed with my interpretation of the communication to the STB, although he believes it was an innocent mistake. He talked to McFarland (the attorney) and McFarland is going to write a follow-up to the STB clarifying the issue, and Mayor Allen is going to write a letter to the STB himself stating the Village’s status in the matter. I’ll write a new post later on the rest of my conversation — it was very interesting!
Thanks, CJ. I know nothing of Village politics, and I imagine that you or David Jordan know more about prior votes, but does the Mayor (alone) have that authority. I’d be interested in when the last time a vote on rail v. trail was taken by the village board. It wouldn’t be fair for the Mayor to act unilaterally. Maybe they have a different system, and this isn’t an issue for their Board.
Bless those independent thinkers in Peoria Heights for wanting to keep their options open. Please, do no allow yourselves to be bullied by big brother or it’s running dog into a bad decision.
Just Some Guy:
Here is definition for deride — I find no humor in any of these situations. To attack CJ and even imply that he is on the take is outlandish. To misrepresent another person or entity is unacceptable too. I am not laughing.
de·ride — To speak of or treat with contemptuous mirth. (Latin: to laugh at).
Since you are anonymous, one does not have any indication of your level of involvement in local government and if you have been in the trenches in actively changing our local government and public policy nor that you have ever come across questionable and illegal activities by the government and if you have had any or multiple opportunities to first hand experience what goes on in the political trench. I hope that you do engage in changing public policy for the better — that is one of the responsibilities of being a good citizen.
Yes, governments do engage in illegal activities, whether knowingly or not and in misrepresentations (I do have proof.)
or do you think that every action is always ship shape and bristol fashion?
And please do not use the Savior’s name as some common word of disparagement — He is the Son of God and He and His name should be treated with reverence and honor. Thank you.
Satan, Karrie, you are a piece of work. I think it has subsequently been pretty well decided that there has been nothing nefarious going on. But you were the second, after CJ (who is much more reasonable), to make that accusation.
I need not justify my public involvement to you. I’m plenty involved. My right to an opinion remains.
Just Some Guy:
I agree with you — your right to an opinion remains as well as mine and everyone else.
Glad that you are plenty involved! 🙂
The question was asking if you have or have not had experiences that included
governments engaging in illegal actions or misrepresentations for purposes of context not about justifying your public involvement to me.
Yes, it is ‘reasonable’ for citizens to expect that the public’s business is done in public.
Karrie: I’ve had enough experience that I feel the need to remain anonymous. Trust me.
What percentage of municipal business do you believe is conducted “above board”? When CJ first posted this, you were quick to jump on board and claim it “swill”. Methinks you are quick to think the worst. I am not so naive to think that everything is kosher; but I am also willing to give folks the benefit of the doubt. You seem only too willing to cast the first stone.
I still haven’t heard what stance the Village board has taken on this issue. It strikes me that the Mayor coming out with a “new stance” (I think) is just the sort of behavior you would deride if done with a position you disfavor.
JSG, why do you keep asking for the Village of Peoria Heights to vote on something? Didn’t C.J. already make it clear that the Village never voted on a service provider on the rails because they DON’T have any service on the rails? How can you vote on a rail company when nothing is being delivered on your rail? That’s the only thing that the City of Peoria has voted on. I don’t recall the Mayor of Peoria Heights saying that he was speaking for anyone but himself. He said he felt the majority of the Village Board would back him on wanting more information on the streetcar concept. Don’t you think that if the Village Board thought he was leading them astray that the Journal Star wouldn’t have run with that? Best I can recall, all he said was that he wanted to have more information about rail possibilities before doing anything permanent. Why do you keep calling Peoria Heights out over something that is only in its beginning stages (alternative uses for the rail other than a trail)?
I think it’s because you are a trail proponent and you’re just trying to take a “laid-back” approach to getting your position out.
Anon: Make all the accusations you’d like. I have no real way of proving to you that I am, as stated, generally pro-rail. (Maybe more precisely, I am pro-keeping-our-options-open).
I keep asking about the Heights for this reason: This debate has been going on for some 10 years. For the past 6 months, it has really heated up. I don’t know how long Allen has been PH Mayor, but recently he has started to state that the Heights might not be interested in a trail. This has been covered, by media and bloggers alike, to be a general change in opinion. Does the city have so much power that they have bullied the Heights lo these many years? Now with a new Mayor they are asserting themeselves?
CJ is a great blogger, but I have yet to see any “history” of the Village’s official votes on this matter. Karrie is a great activist, but if the positions were reversed, she’d likely be pitching a fit.
This all started because CJ claimed that the city misrepresented the village’s wishes. I just pointed out that the village’s wishes are likely contained in some long-ago cast vote that said they wanted the trail. I’d just like them to take a more comprehensive stand, much like the city council just did, so that everyone knows where everyone stands.
Likely, you still believe me to be something I’m not. That’s OK: one thing I’ve learned so far is that both sides are prone to conspiracy theories.
JSG, if you had paid a bit of attention through the years, you’d know that Allen beat Earl Carter nearly two years ago. Carter was strongly pro-trail, mostly because he is strongly Republican and pals with Ray LaHood. Allen never came out as pro-trail at any time, so there has not been a reversal of his stance, only the stance that Carter had.
And the City DID present Peoria Heights as virtually having voted themselves regarding the line carrier. I’m sure that the Heights will vote on this when the time comes. In the meantime, I’ve been told that this subject of a trail vs. rail was brought forth in at least one public meeting for the Heights, and at least five of the six trustees voiced approval with the streetcar idea. Like I said to you before, until the village gets all of the facts, economical and whatever else is involved, regarding the streetcar, to make sure it can work, you ought to just quit worrying about the “vote” or not.
Anon: I don’t live in the Heights, so I don’t really pay attention to their politics. I also know little about Morton, E Peoria, etc.
I’m not worrying about the “vote.” But it has been 10 freakin’ years. Great, Allen has had two of them! Why not take a public, official stance? It doesn’t seem that hard to do. Rather, they’d like to pussy-foot the issue and see how the big boys come out. I give Allen credit for his stance, and I am generally supportive of it. But the citizens of the Village have a right to know where their Trustees stand on the issue. So does Peoria, for that matter.
I realize I am new to this topic. First, yes, I am Karrie’s husband. Second, I lived many years in Rockford, there they had, when I lived there, rail service, which went along the river and near several parks. Along with the rail service, the Rockford Park District had, at one time, trolley rides which went along the rail line. Parallel to the rail line they still have a much used and very attractive pedestrian/bike path. Although I do not know all the history of the Keller branch line, I question why can not there continue a pedestrian/bike path parallel to it like what we have here in Peoria along the riverfront. Now it does not need to go along the entire length of the rail line, Rockford’s trolley I believe only traveled about a mile of the rail and then reversed direction. The pedestrian/bike path followed for a couple miles then went along marked street paths. I know because I walked and road it many times in my youth. My question, WHY CAN NOT THE RIGHT OF WAY HAVE MULTIPLE USES HERE? Or are there too many people with a scarcity mentality that we just do not want to share the space?
I don’t have a history of all the Village’s votes. What I do know from talking to Mayor Allen and doing some research is that the former mayor (Earl Carter) and three of the six trustees were replaced at the last election (April 2005). I don’t know what all the issues were or how the rail/trail issue fit, if at all. But according to the mayor, the current Village board has a different attitude toward the Kellar Branch than the previous board.
They haven’t had a new vote because, as of yet, there’s nothing to vote on. But there is definitely a change in trajectory. Not just the mayor, but the board is investigating the trolley idea. The board will be seeing a presentation about it next month. They’ll take a vote some time after that.
Also, here’s a copy of the correction McFarland sent to the STB yesterday (PDF). I’d like to point out this statement:
This explains the issue well, I think. The former filing implied that the Village explicitly approved of the latest vote, which is not the case. The new filing clarifies that the Village hasn’t taken a position either way since the proceeding was reopened, which is clearly more accurate.
As far as I’m concerned, this issue has been resolved and there’s really nothing left to argue about.
JSG: Your observations and constructive criticism are noted. I will work on my presentation style — ‘derision’ is not my objective. My objective is to advocate for open/transparent and inclusive governmental process to develop a healthy community for all stakeholders.
Many people do not give a flying leap about government, others do. My husband tells me that “people do not want to know that they can’t trust elected officials and administrations. You want to know that you can trust elected officials and administrations. Since you tenaciously advocate for that concept — people may think that you are unreasonable.”
Yes, in my opinion, it is swill — which is a generic term for waste products mixed together into pig feed. Please review, perhaps you might concur, that our community wastes a lot of resources (people, people’s lives, time, talents, money, etc.)by being exclusive in citizen involvement — silo management and the governments do not generally work together effectively and efficiently and collaboratively — instead within their own fiefdoms to detriment of our city’s stability, and those in positions of connection, money and social standing predominately dictating the future without other stakeholders being invited to the table and respected. We need everyone involved with buy-in to effect change. We need accurate representations of the various stakeholders, whether or not it supports our position or not. Not continuous battles.
What one governmental entity does and what each stakeholder does affects another — like dominos in a line.
I appreciate your experience and perhaps you will be able to appreciate mine.
Unfortunately, the cases in which I have been involved over the last 13 years, there has not been even one which has followed all governmental regulations. Consider the odds. I realize that this is a complex task and mistakes are made. Then correct them and move on. Please do not look the other way and hope that activists will go away.
From these experiences, I am inclined to be leery of bureaucrats and even non-profit organizations. When discovered to be in the wrong, instead of retrenchment and course corrections, received instead is rationalizations galore and behavior attempting to destroy the messenger (in this case, me) in a variety of methods, humiliation, bullying, verbal abuse, attempts to strip me and the group I am representing of our constitutional rights — would that be acceptable to you if you were in my position?
(In one case, for consideration of looking for federal funding, our group was to agree to: cease and desist from contacting any state or federal agency having authority over this issue, having to contact the City on a quarterly basis, rescind a FOIA request from Washington, D.C. and and the list goes on ….). Would that be acceptable to you? Would that have any affect on your view of governance?
Perhaps I have decided to be jaded, by bureaucrats and elected officials ‘playing’ to whatever audience is in front of them. Different stories for different crowds. Different information being disseminated. Reminds of that saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
I am not sure about something you wrote in your earlier post. If someone changes their mind as the result of better understanding, new information that leads to a different conclusion then yes, change your position. Believe it or not, I have changed my opinion based on new information. Nevertheless, my usual course is decided based on a lot of information gatherd upfront and processing that information prior to making a decision to advocate for any specific topic/position.
I also give atta-boys and atta-girls both publically and privately — perhaps you have not witnessed the reverse side of my stone casting.
I hope that one day we will met in person and continue this discussion — I appreciate your forthright dialogue and constructive criticism! 🙂
Thanks, Karrie. Your activism is well noted, and your passion is appreciated. And we’ve met.
A healthy mistrust of government is always wise. And maybe it was CJ calling out the city’s misrepresentation of the Village position that got Randy Ray to change his filing. There seemed to be no original plot to deceive, but I’m glad Ray did the right thing.
Keep up the good work.
I have a couple of questions. 1. is the city of Peoria requried to put out to bid for the Kellar Branch carrier. This question was posed by one of our railroad listers. 2. If they are required to put out to bid is the Village of Peoria Heights required to do the same for their portion of the rail? 3. If both are required and both get different bids, where do we go from there?