“The city doesn’t have a budget problem,” Gary Sandberg told me after the city council voted to spend taxpayer money for a walking trail and a private hotel. “It has a priority problem.”
That was the same observation made by Dr. Heywood Sanders of the University of Texas-San Antonio. Sanders is a well-known critic of the convention center (and increasingly, headquarters hotel) “arms race” taking place in cities across America. He’s currently writing a book about it. I asked for his thoughts on the argument that cities simply must offer huge, tax-supported incentives.
The argument goes like this: “In an ideal world, the free market would reign and projects like the hotel would be built 100% by private investment. But that’s not the world we live in. We’re in a struggle with other communities that are providing public incentives in order to lure businesses to their cities. If we don’t compete in offering these kinds of
incentives, we’ll lose out. It’s not the way it’s supposed to be, but it’s the way it is, and we just have to play the game.”
Dr. Sanders has heard the argument many times before. His response was instructive:
The “we have to do it because everyone else is” argument is repeated endlessly in city after city to justify a host of “economic development” efforts. But that doesn’t make it correct. Cities do need to compete for some things. The crucial questions are what the goals are that the city seeks, and whether the decisions make sense or not. The “we have to” argument neatly avoids laying out real goals and objectives, things that can be measured and assessed over time. And an investment decision necessarily involves risk.
The real [important things to consider are] what the potential rewards are, how they relate to community goals, and what the balance of costs and benefits are. It’s all too easy to hide behind simple homilies so that one doesn’t have to really consider what you’re trying to get, and whether it makes sense. As we’ve discussed, Peoria (like a great many cities) has been trying to “save” its downtown for decades. It doesn’t appear to have made much headway. If that’s really the goal, then you need to consider multiple strategies and alternatives, and see what actually happens.
The problem is that planners and local officials almost invariably seek to imitate what someone else has done, with little understanding of how it came about and why it works. There’s an endless parade of architects, planners, and local officials who visit San Antonio’s famed Riverwalk and conclude that all they need is [a] river (or a canal) to get “economic development.” It’s not that simple. Just like everyone thinks building a new convention center will bring hordes to town, and that they then need a new hotel to make the convention center work. And there are a host of consultants who are willing and eager to give local officials (and the business interests they serve) the urban solution du jour.
Peoria has a long history of trying to use large civic projects as a silver bullet to revitalize downtown:
- The Civic Center was supposed to revitalize downtown, but it hasn’t. It does bring people downtown for Civic Center events, but once the events are over, they all get in their cars and empty out of downtown. The restaurant with the best location relative to the Civic Center — the Grill on Fulton — couldn’t even stay in business. The Civic Center continues to operate in the red every year.
- Then the City developed the riverfront. There was $2.6 million for the Gateway Building, which the City spends $170,000 a year to operate and maintain. They tried to sell it in 2007, but were evidently unsuccessful. Riverfront Village — the raised concrete slab with parking underneath it that blocks your view of the river — was supposed to “pay for itself” with increased property taxes and parking fees. Parking is now free, and the tax-exempt Heartland Partnership is one of the three tenants on the slab. According to the 2010 budget, the Riverfront is expected to bring in $1.07 million in revenue toward the bond payment of $1.3 million.
- Then there was One Technology Plaza, which was supposed to “redefine downtown.” Remember that? As the Journal Star editorialized a year after it opened, One Technology Plaza “was advertised as a novel way to put Peoria on the high-tech map, to distinguish Peoria and its work force from virtually every other mid-sized city in America.” The city spent $9.6 million on that project “in part because the $28 million private development would feature the computer-training agency.” That agency — RiverTech Center — opened in April 2000 and closed in May 2001.
- Then the City acquired and prepared the land for a new ballpark to the tune of $3.3 million. That was supposed to lead to a renaissance south of downtown, turning blighted properties into a “Wrigleyville” atmosphere. The ballpark opened in 2002, but no Wrigleyville has materialized.
- Along the way, the City picked up the Sears property for around $1 million — the so-called “crown jewel” of downtown Peoria. They’re poised to give the land away to the County so Lakeview Museum can relocate to the block at taxpayer expense.
- And then there’s the Wonderful Development (City attorney Randy Ray’s ebullient appellation for the downtown hotel project), which the City Council has approved twice now. It’s a big project with a single developer and no public benefit — but a lot of public risk. This is the latest big, civic, silver bullet that will finally bring tourists to Peoria and make the Civic Center profitable. But just like with the other projects, no measurable, objective criteria for success has been identified for the downtown hotel project. Presumably, as long as the project meets its debt obligation, it will be declared a success, regardless of whether it brings in new conventions, regardless of whether other hotels and restaurants close.
The completed projects have not delivered on their promises of downtown revitalization, and there’s little reason to be hopeful that the proposed projects will fare any better. These projects are all big, flashy, and give the appearance that “things are really booming in Peoria.” Meanwhile, many less-exciting projects get put on the back burner or eliminated altogether. Those projects are called “basic services.” Things like road and sidewalk repair.
At the same time the Council approved the Wonderful Development, there was another $40 million project the council could have funded instead. It’s the Washington/Adams (U.S. Route 24) upgrade project. This would improve Route 24 from I-474 to I-74, which would benefit the public (it’s a public street) as well as numerous business/land owners and developers all up and down the stretch. It would implement key elements of the Heart of Peoria Plan (adopted “in principle” by the City Council) and the Warehouse District form-based code.
It would remove the median from the southern portion of the roadway, making the properties along that stretch more accessible and marketable, thus raising their value. It would make the Warehouse District area more pedestrian-friendly, spurring development of loft apartments/condos which would bring more residents back to downtown, which will spur more demand for retail services in the City’s central business district. Currently many of those properties sit vacant, contributing to the City’s budget woes.
This project is not without risk. There might not be enough property improvements or increases in tax receipts for the project to “pay for itself” (although I’m sure the City could find a consultant to say it will pay for itself if they really wanted to do it). But the project also carries significant public benefit, and the presence of multiple developers and property owners over a large, diverse area mitigates the risks. Yet this project languishes in the Land of Insufficient Resources while the Wonderful Development moves forward.
Conclusion: Success is not a priority for Peoria. Downtown revitalization isn’t really a priority for Peoria. Peoria’s’ biggest priority is the appearance of progress. And based on that criteria, we can all say “mission accomplished.” There’s a lot going on. Stuff being built. Stuff being torn down. Money being spent (mostly tax money, alas). It all contributes to the image that Peoria is moving and shaking.
But it’s not. Peoria is in debt and it’s continuing to lose population. City services are being slashed every year, driving more people away. The appearance of progress is bankrupting us. It doesn’t just affect the City. It also affects the County and, especially, the school district (Things are changing! Look at our shiny new buildings! Just don’t look at our test scores).
Sandberg is right. Peoria doesn’t have a budget problem. It has a priority problem.
Hands down the best summary of this city. Should be copied and sent to the mayor and all council members minus Sandberg.
Regrettably amen to your analysis. When you can get the money first from the public till and then come up with any business plan, even an unrealistic/unattainable business plan and our elected officials still vote in the affirmative, we continue to go backwards. We never get at the root cause of our problems and therefore never produce any solutions which will turn our fair city around.
Like my friend always tells me … If nothing changes, nothing changes.
Peoria is behind the times. The path the City is currently walking – promoting urban sprawl, giving hand-outs to developers, embracing box-box retailers, neglecting the basics and trying to compete with “others” – is a dead end that does not work. There is no magic bullet, as the failures of the various projects have shown. Change is sorely needed.
I agree with the first part of your post C.J. However, the re-building of RT. 24 and hoping that lofts appear, etc. is kind of like hoping people come to the new hotel and support the Civic Center and museum. I know you said it has its risks. I drive 24 almost every day and notice that there are still cinders, dirt, dried mud, etc. on the sidewalk from snowplowing. I’m sure if my sidewalk looked like this I’d see Code Enforcement. I rarely, if ever, think I have seen anyone walking on Washington in the area south of Olive to the Adams/Washington intersection. Replace it and they will come? Wishful thinking?
Oh, not only is the Grill closed, so has Lindsay’s on Liberty and F. Scotts/Eamon Patrick’s two other “very close within walking distance” restaurant locations.
Kevin: I agree. It seems to me that in some respects folks who promote expensive New Urbanism projects have vastly oversold themselves on the benefits of narrowing streets. Sort of like the people who think building hotels and museums and ballparks is essentially the same as printing money.
I agree with this post and think it’s well said. I have two things. One is of course the Rt24 thing. I really doubt removing a median will improve property values and attract businesses. That sounds a little like the kool-aid our council is drinking.
Two, why then do we Peorians seem to elect these people who make these decisions? I mean Sandberg easily gets re-elected but seldom goes along with these costly and risky projects but people like Van Auken who hasn’t found a developer she hasn’t liked, gets re-elected like Turner, and Spears, and sadly Christmas Gulley, and lest not forget our Mayor who is a nice guy but his ideas for our city don’t fit our wallets.
People should be packing the council chambers and demanding accountability. I mean really, in the old days, there would have been a crowd outside city hall with torches and pitch forks. Where is a the passion or is it that most of the passionate and vocal of Peorians have already left Peoria?
Also, thanks for bringing up the Gateway building and it’s costs to the city. I brought this up as one of the loser projects on another post and someone said I didn’t know what I was talking about.
Peoria County seems to have grown a ‘pair’ lately. Now THEY are demanding museum oversight, at least through the construction phase. WOW! Now I feel better.
Keep voting ‘NO’ Merle.
conrad hit the nail on the head. Problem is, for every tax dollar wasted – somebody is making that dollar – and those somebodies have a vested interest in the City continuing to waste money.
NV: Your feelings are premature — with the same flawed plan, nothing will actually change. And now, taxpayers will get to have further dilution of Peoria County Board Members time and talents on a non-core service project. Taxpayers will additionally get to cover insurance costs for the ‘grounds’ of the Peoria County owned portion of the museum block. And as Merle stated, the broken promises continue………..
Nail. On. Head.
Meanwhile, East Peoria is thriving.
I might add that Peoria also has an ego problem. I think a lot of the underlying problems go un-addressed because Peoria is ‘too good’ to have such issues. Peoria cannot possibly have crime problems, school problems, basic service problems. Peoria is above that. After all, if it plays in Peoria……
Karrie,
Now, now…….
I know YOU know I was being……sarcastic?
I AM relieved knowing former Mayor Ransberg is so willing to ….”give something back…” I am also sure that Jim Richerson was pleasantly surprised to find out about his new appointment as PRM president. Being modest as he is, his first inclination was probably to refuse the honor, but in the end…..what the hell!
Gotta keep the circle tight!
I would encourage everyone to read Richard Longworth’s book – Caught in the Middle, which is about how the midwest is coping or failing to cope with globalization. Two points that I took from the book important to Peoria. One, cities that adapt to globalizaition will thrive (such as Chicago) and cities that cannot or will not adapt will die (Cleveland). Two, he points out that most successfully revitalizing communities are doing so without government taking a lead role. He actually points to Peoria as a model of a city moving in the right direction, particularly the cooperation between Cat and ICC and the existence of a large medical community. Why do I mention Richard Longworth? Because he will be speaking at the Embassy Suites in EAST Peoria on Thursday, June 24th at 11:30am.
http://www.edc.centralillinois.org/news/edc-and-illinois-central-college-present-american-midwest-caught-age-globalization
Ask anyone that owns or had owned a restaurant downtown why it’s so tough. As long as the city allows non-vested business’s (pushcarts) to show up at your front door and STEAL your lunch time traffic 3/4 of the year restaurants(not nightclubs that sell food) will continue to struggle and/or fail.
Why invest money in bricks and mortar downtown when all you all you have to do is rent a spot on the sidewalk and grab the lunch crowds’ money. This problem will never change downtown because the “general public” likes the carts and they don’t understand what it does to the business’s with storefronts.
peoriafan,
Wait till the FIVE resturants open in the new 1,2,3,4,5, (you call it 3 years AFTER it opens) Star hotel opens downtown. For everybodies sake, big conventions at the CC better sky rocket, all the existing hotels should gain in census and River Station, In-Play and Gateway Center and the PRM better thrive.
Lot’s of luck and thanks to George, Dan, Gary and Bill’s “no” vote. And thanks to an elected official who appeared before the council to give the reasons why to vote no.
Me.
For those of you who might be interesed, I told a “joke”, wasting my speaking time and then had to defy Ardis and speak a minute and a half longer. Anyway, the joke:
A little boy was expecting a pony for Chrstmas and Christmas morn he rushed to the family Christmas tree where a large box had been placed. He eagerly tore into the box only to found it filled with manure. Ever the optimist, he started digging through all the manure while proclaiming, “with all this manure, there must be a pony in here somewhere”. Bad joke? The “suits” did not laugh.
Since the council hall was packed with hotel supporters, I didn’t get much applause.
Peoriafan,
I’ll bet the ‘push carts’ are going to LOVE the new museum! Is that part of the economic BOOM the museum supporters keep talking about?
DAve,
Read the book. Longworth points to Peoria as a city moving where and why?
Peoria has been a “medical community” for decades. The relationship between CAT, ICC and Bradley has existed for decades. This is not news. While the existence of these ‘relationships’ are critical to Peoria, they are not enough to keep Peoria above water; especially with a city govt. that takes us back into the [financial/economic] stone-age again and again.
The city council [and friends] have shown absolutely NO responsibility when it comes to city spending and/or the backing of ill-devised projects, etc. Hope city govt & company plan on attending Longworth’s little talk.
P.S. Irwin of ICC is still an ardent supporter of the PRM; so is Glasser of BU. Gee… wonder why.
Are they both pawns in a greater game?
Gotta answer to the ‘board’ mom……
The City Council continues to kill City services from budget short falls. Last year they cut the size of Police and Public Works the most. The infrastructure deteriorates and crime rises. There are many studies that relate the two with each other. The answer is not to make City Staff smaller it is to make it efficient and to thrive with new ideas. There are no incentives from the Council to encourage new ideas of doing business from staff. Everytime you see staff taking something to Council they critisize it and question it but when a developer and consultants come to council they buy in and give a huge check. If you can’t afford City Staff how can you afford a hotel or to hire consultant after consultant? Look at some of the rates and contracts City Council approves to hire consultants. They are not making government smaller they are shifting it from having in house folks that are accountable to consultants and friends of the Council. It is very disturbing and corrupt. Just like Police and Public Works taking the majority of the cuts last year. This town needs to invest in it’s infrastructure to stabilize the existing town versus growin. It is time the Council determined what they want and what they don’t want and fund the things they want properly ie. Public Works, Police, Fire, Code Enforcement, Planning and Zoning, Parking Enforcement, Information Systems and do away with other things if the Fire Department is not going to do ambulance service don’t go on ambulance calls stick to fires, do we need to fund the municipal band? Let’s cut the waste and get to basic city services funded properly. I am not sure this is a priority though.
I completely disagree with the rt 24 idea and believe that if enacted, it will be a traffic disaster and not bring any development to the area. Way too many grain trucks travel that route to make it safe.
Don’t forget the “highly successful” Campustown and Mid-Town Plaza ventures. They worked well, didn’t they?
Why compare Campustown with Mid-Town? I think Campustown has worked out ok. I would rather have the Varsity Theater still standing though.
the cooperation between Cat and ICC…
CAT has its nose and fingers in everything…
The big difference between East Peoria and Peoria, as I see it, is that Peoria kisses the arse of “The Pillow Factory” and East Peoria “collects rent” from them.
One of the things I noticed when I move to Peoria about 16 years ago, was the amount of consultants that were hired to go other places and gather information and come back and tell Peoria why it should do so and so to look like some other town. They were always comparing this city or that one and saying we should do that here in Peoria. Why? Why can’t Peoria find a soul of its own and be uniquely individual? Why do we always have to hire consultants to convince us to emulate other cities? We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to look like someone else and it never works. We have no great success stories resulting from all of this money and study. When can we get to Peoria being Peoria and concentrating on using the assets we have here and stop trying to be someone and something else? Lets be ourselves and see how that works. It sure as heck can’t be any worse than we have now and it could be a whole lot cheaper.
mdd — And that would be based on what? There has been an extensive traffic study of this corridor and IDOT approves of the current upgrade plans. Unlike HVS, which never saw a headquarters hotel deal it didn’t like, IDOT is not a friend of New Urbanism, preferring to keep streets as wide and fast as possible. One of the big things they look at is traffic counts and capacity. If they’re okay with it, I feel confident it will not be a “traffic disaster.”
All — Upgrading Rt. 24 will spur some development. There are local developers who have made it known they have plans to convert old warehouses into loft apartments if and when the street is improved. Will the road improvement project “pay for itself”? Well, that depends on how you look at it. Fixing the streets is a basic service that benefits the public, and that includes anyone who travels on Rt. 24, as well as existing businesses and property owners located along the route. Those businesses pay taxes, and I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the taxpayers of this city — businesses and residents alike — receive the basic services they’re paying for.
Why are construction estimates rising so rapidly in Peoria? Prime example. The County Board voted to build a new 224 bed BelWood Nursing home. (The home now has 300 beds with appox. 70 vacancies with no waiting list for years. When approved, total hard and soft costs were estimated at $34 million. Eighteen months or so later total costs of a new B-W have risen to $54 million, not $45 million as the JSEB and a JS writer wrote last week. A $54 million dollar “safety net” for the poor??
Confirm with Erik Bush, Peoria County departing Financial Officer. My letter to the JSEB correcting this mere $9 million dollar error has not yet appeared. Bloggers like C.J. and Billy D., blog commentors and my blog site and Community Word are my last bastions to get out the truth.
The JSEB editorial today talks about transparency and it talks about the museum being under-funded by $5-7 million dollars. Try on $14 to 17 million after Karrie gets the museum to release their June 30,2009 audited financial statememt and read the interim Lakeview financial report dated 12/31/09. This official sheet shows that appox. $12 million of the $14 million in CASH had all been already spent leaving only $1.8 million without a spade turned or a contract with IMAX.
So many lies by so many people. But wasn’t it reported that 70% of kids cheat in the classroom? Evidently some kids never break the habit.
I have to agree with mdd on this one. For IDOT to conclude the project is okay, they must have confused another corridor with Route 24 🙂
Among the reasons I oppose the project:
(1) We don’t need it. It’s a non-necessity. $42 million shouldn’t be spent elsewhere, it shouldn’t be spent at all. Maintain the road we have, but don’t screw it up with a reduction of lanes designed to divert semi traffic and shift the Rt. 24 designation to Adams and Jefferson.
(2) Washington Street has an interchange with I-74, recently reconfigured. If you downgraded the road with fewer lanes and slower speeds, you risk screwing up traffic patterns. Those grain trucks heading to and from ADM come from area’s west and northwest of Peoria so I-74 to SW Washington St. is the best route. If those trucks avoid the reconfigured area (isn’t that the point?), a greater number will be making a right onto Hamilton then left on SW Jefferson, or they will cross the Murray Baker Bridge, exit onto Riverfront Drive then take the Bob Michel Bridge back across the river and then turn left onto SW Jefferson. (The Cedar Street Bridge has a 15-ton limit now so no grain trucks.) Another otpion for ADM-bound trucks is exiting at Glen Oak Street (by the hospitals), and using William Kumpf Blvd to SW Jefferson.
During the grain rush, a large number of trucks arrive ADM’s staging area within a short time span. I’ve seen dozens lined up on SW Washington, backed up to at least Liberty St. waiting to turn left onto Persimmon Street.
I’ve seen low-boy trucks hauling those giant Komatsu truck chasses down NE Jefferson, turn left onto Hamilton then right onto SW Washington. I’m sure there’s a reason for that – probably because it’s a better route.
(3) I can’t help but think the city’s Rt. 24 plans to “spur development” is nothing different than the museum, civic center, ballpark, Riverplex, etc. It’s going to save Peoria, you know 🙂
(4) Somehow, business developed along SW Washington Street despite its present configuration. This plan is more about, “Let’s get rid of old economy industry and replace it with upscale condos and tourism-oriented businesses.” Putting on a new suit doesn’t cover up a stab in the heart.
DPJ — Whether or not you think this particular plan for upgrading the road is a good idea, the road does need to be improved. There’s no question about that. They could choose not to restrict it so much through the Warehouse District and keep it as a “B” street, so to speak, but the median on the south end still needs to come out and something needs to be done about the trucks that back up along Washington at peak times.
I guess I take issue with the idea that narrower lanes and slower speeds equals “downgrading” the street. I guess that depends on your perspective. If you’re a semi driver, then yes, it’s a downgrade. If you’re a pedestrian, it’s an upgrade. Have you ever gone to Builders Warehouse? It’s not pleasant walking from the parking lot to their front door with large semis barreling down the street at 50 mph about four or five feet from you. The owners of some of those businesses don’t feel safe walking in the front door of their own property because of the state of the street. The streets need to accommodate all users, not just semis. The street needs to be improved, and we can argue all day about how that improvement should look.
The point of my post is to say that putting the money into street improvements would be a far better use of $40 million than putting it into a risky private hotel development.
Blame everything on the clowns who let the gambling boat get away from a Peoria side shore. If that boat was still on this side of the river we wouldn’t be talking this talk in the same manner.
CJ: “IDOT is not a friend of New Urbanism, preferring to keep streets as wide and fast as possible.”
Then explain IDOT narrowing of W Lincoln and Howett Streets and installing a bike lane. If your statement was true, then they would have left 116 2 lanes each direction. Last I check these streets run right through neighborhoods.
CJ Summers wrote: If you’re a pedestrian, it’s an upgrade. Have you ever gone to Builders Warehouse? It’s not pleasant walking from the parking lot to their front door with large semis barreling down the street at 50 mph about four or five feet from you.
Isn’t that why they put their parking lot in the rear? You can get to it from Oak Street (and yes, I know that Oak was closed for reconstruction earlier this spring).
Randall, that was uncharacteristic of IDOT. I’ve always wondered how that happened.
David, so you think businesses should all orient themselves to side streets? No one should be allowed to use Washington except cars and especially semis? I guess we have a philosophical difference on who should have access to city streets.
“Lot’s of luck and thanks to George, Dan, Gary and Bill’s “no” vote. And thanks to an elected official who appeared before the council to give the reasons why to vote no.”
Merle,
Just wanted to correct you but Jim Montelongo voted No. Mr. Billy Spears is part of the Ardis gang so I just want to make sure we give kudos to the correct people and VOTE OUT the ones that need to go!
As far as Rt 24 this is a way better use of funds and I woudl rather see the city spending its money this way. Improve the roads, and the infastructure around areas to entice developemnt rather than handing over blanck checks to greedy developers. I would rather see that than the investemts we have made in the Hotel, Museum, Globe Enrgy, Firefly and other investments.
Randall, that was uncharacteristic of IDOT. I’ve always wondered how that happened.
Today’s IDOT is not your dad’s IDOT. There are several initiatives that are moving the state in the direction of New Urbanism, including the recently passed Complete Streets law. However, every project should take everything into context, not just apply a cookie cutter approach…but then again, there have to be some minimum standards so roads aren’t a hodge-podge from point A to point B.