Big Al’s is now considering a move to a City-owned parking lot adjacent to the CityLink bus terminal at Jefferson and Harrison — a location that is within 500 feet of Swinger’s World, another adult business. Yet, according to the City’s municipal code (Sec. 18-53(a)(1) and (3)): “A sexually oriented adult use shall not be allowed within 500 feet of another existing sexually oriented adult use,” and “A sexually oriented adult use shall not be located within 500 feet of a preexisting school or place of worship.” So, doesn’t that disqualify the proposed location?
Section (b) of the ordinance was amended recently in order to allow Big Al’s to move to the parking lot adjacent to the Madison Theater. It allowed a provision that, “so long as the sexually oriented adult use continues and does not change the nature of the sexually oriented adult use, [it may] relocate to a location which brings the location more into compliance with the terms of section 18-53.” It adds, for clarity, “‘More into compliance’ means, for example, that if an existing sexually oriented adult use were within 250 feet of a place of worship, it would be more in compliance if it were relocated to a site more than 375 feet from any zoning district which is zoned for residential use, and satisfied all other requirements of subsection (a) above.” Since Big Al’s would still be within 500 feet of a church in the Madison Theater parking lot, but further away from a church than its current location, it would be in compliance with this newly-revised ordinance.
But moving closer to an existing adult use business like Swinger’s World would clearly violate this section. It wouldn’t be moving “more into compliance.”
Not only that, but CityLink also houses Myah’s Just 4 Kids Learning Center. It would appear that Big Al’s would also be in violation of the ordinance for moving within 500 feet of this school. According to the Journal Star, City attorney Randy Ray “said he’s not sure if the learning center would be considered a school under the city’s ordinance.” While it is certainly possible to devise a legal distinction between schools and daycare/learning centers, this is a textbook case of following the letter of the law but violating the spirit of it. Why do we have prohibitions on adult-use businesses being within 500 feet of schools? And wouldn’t those same reasons apply to a daycare/learning center?
Leaving that aside, there’s another problem with this location, and that regards its eligibility for a liquor license. Section 3-11(a) of the City’s code says, “No license shall be issued for the sale at retail of any alcoholic liquor within 100 feet of any church, school (other than an institution of higher learning) hospital, home for the aged or indigent persons, nursing homes or homes for veterans or their spouses or children, any military or naval station or any daycare facility licensed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services…” (emphasis added). This ordinance specifies daycare facilities, so we no longer have the ambiguity of what constitutes a “school.” Then the question becomes, how do you measure the distance? The ordinance says:
In the case of a church, the distance of 100 feet shall be measured to the nearest part of any building used for worship services or educational programs and not to property boundaries. In all other cases, the measurement shall be made in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the property line of school, hospital, home of the aged or indigent persons, nursing home or homes for veterans or their spouses or children or any military or naval stations, any daycare facility licensed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, or any publicly owned housing development containing 200 or more housing units.
Myah’s is located in the CityLink Transfer Center. Thus, it would appear from this ordinance that the measurement would have to be made from the property line of the transfer center. In that case, Big Al’s would be within 100 feet and not in compliance with the ordinance.
But let’s face it, it doesn’t matter what the ordinance says. The City Council is committed to letting the strip club go wherever it wants to go, and they will not let this or that ordinance get in their way. Why? They have to make way for the Wonderful Development:
At-large City Councilman Eric Turner, who is the city’s deputy liquor commissioner, said while the parking lot isn’t the best place for Big Al’s, the business does need to move from its current location in order for construction of the Downtown Marriott Hotel, supported with $37 million in public financing.
“My biggest concern . . . there will not be a hotel, there will be no further Downtown development,” Turner said.
He said if the learning center fights the city over the Big Al’s location, the city could have to kill the move, and potentially sink the Marriott Hotel deal.
Marriott Hotel über alles. Ain’t no mountain high enough, ain’t no valley low enough, ain’t no children vulnerable enough to keep that hotel deal from going through, baby! If the Wonderful Development’s ever in trouble, Eric Turner will be there on the double.
Considering the location of Myah’s, this is a moot point but…
What is the purpose of an ordinace to keep sexually oriented adult businesses 500 feet away from a similar business? If they’re spread out, it creates a larger area that people will consider unsavory. As a general rule, would you rather see strip clubs evenly spread across the city, or focused in one area? It seems like the city would want to pomote them being close together rather than discourage it.
There has to be something I’m missing…
Eric, I concur. Sure, there is a demand for adult businesses, it would be naive to think otherwise. But if you are trying to redevelop downtown, around the stadium, and the warehouse district why keep this sort of business in the heart of it? It is an attraction for visitors and city residents but I don’t know how many flourishing cities are built around a strip club.
What is the deal with it still having to be in the heart of the city? Can it only be on city owned land? Proximity to Police Station is a plus.
$37 million of public financing could be used for a lot of other things though…
The Peoria Illinoisan has a great post on Peoria Then & Now. Look at what Swinger’s World and the area used to be. A lot has changed since 1946, but it looked a lot more livelier downtown.
I’m not basically against Big Al’s and the revenue it pays to the city, but I am having difficulty with placing it at the bus station where new people coming into Peoria are going to see that as their first glimpse of Peoria. I don’t believe Big Al’s should move to the outskirts of the town because they are world reknown and do bring a lot of business and tax money to the city and we would lose that. Plus they are within walking distance of other things downtown which makes it more palatable to leave it downtown somewhere. But the question is where? Wonder what it would be like if it were on the very top of one of our high level buildings. Would they consider the bottom of the building the distance point or would they add the height of the building up to Big Al’s as part of the measured distance to the nearest church or school, day care, etc.. Just a thought to keep it downtown but far enough away from other problems.
Recognise that I am not an attorney but rather and person who since 1968 has lived in Peoria and watched the development of laws especially laws that affect buildings. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s numerous jurisdictions across the United States including Peoria began enacting laws to “regulate” audult business. Early methods was to proscribe distances between other adult uses, schools, churches, residential zones etc IN LIEU of the concept of developing a zone or district that provided for the uses. Not wanting to speak for those who had the choice “some time ago” I would imagine no politician wanted to be on the side of adult related businesses that the creation of an adult business area would allow, so most communities opted for the separation paradgmn. The Supreme Court ruled the validity of BOTH REGULATORY CONCEPTS with the understanding that the separation of uses could NOT create a situation where no adults businesses could be legally established within a community as it was determined that adult businesses were a free exercise of an adult’s liberty, freedom and pursuit of happiness. I believe the Supreme Court case involved a Detroit Michigan statute and the City of Peoria Modeled their local ordinance off of the Detroit Model. The positive to the alternative “district area concept” but at its heart is the acceptance that adult uses will be permitted in concentrations. An acceptance that even with all the problems of the dispersed paradgmn provides, many of those outspoken against adult uses are yet to accept. Most recently with the issues revolving around Elliots adult business several years ago, there was some modest discussion of creating an adult district, but as with any transition to a different set of regulations the process is extremely difficult and fraught also with a lot of NIMBYs.
Again this reply is just an attempt to explain why the cogent observations of Eric and Erik can be made today, not necesarrily to suggest that I favor one solution over the other,……………. I doubt if I ever will have the chance to vote on a substitive revision of the Detroit concept.
Gary, could you explain how Big Al’s relocation problems could stall the Marriott Project. I was under the impression that the developer was to purchase the block (minus the church)and wasn’t responsible for any relocation. Aren’t they 2 seperate transactions unrelated to each other?
I bet a savvy business owner like Big Al just isn’t going to close his business for an indeterminate amount of time, in order to make room for the so-called “wonderful” Marriott project. Rather, he’s probably going to be sure he’s got a place to go before he closes shop. Based on this, I don’t think we’ll see a lot going on with this project until the new Big Al’s is underway. I don’t believe Big Al is under any compulsion to sell, so if a new location isn’t forthcoming, he can just stay where he is and tell Matthews to take a hike. My guess anyway
I honestly don’t care where he puts his strip club but I hope someone asks Al how moving the strip club away from the Madison will affect his prior plans to rehab it.
District 150 Observer,
First I have long ago tried to make sense of seemingly ingnornant quotes from persons of responsibility because the City of Peoria already modified its adult use license provisions to permit TWO LOCATIONS for Big Als to relocate to. One being 414 Hamilton (Old Commercial National Realty Building and home to my first Architectural home in Peoria across alley from Buzy Bee Restaurant) and the parking lot between the Madison Theatre and Holiday Inn City Center. Big Als has permission and approval to relocate to either location its Adult Business. So now how any sense of “stopping the Wonderful project” comes into the equation????????????????????????? If you want to give any credince to the position of Councilman Turner.
…………. Let me connect the dots ……………………
First from my understanding of the “deal” or “purchase agreement” between the owners of Big Als real estate and the Wonderful project Developer has established a price for sale (from finacial statement from City/Developer Agreement)>>>>>>> a real real, obsenely high, eight figure amount before the decimal point contingent unpon financing was agreed to between Big Als ownership and the Wonderful Project Developer (part of which is the $37 Million City GIFT) but part of which is $8 or $9 Million of private equity. Despite what has been espoused by the Developer and current At Large City Council Members that the financing has been completed, I was told in the 3rd week of December 2010 that the necessary private equity portion had not yet been raised, so what I see in connecting the dots between reality and fantasy the ONLY WAY WITHOUT COMING BACK TO CITY COUNCIL A THIRD TIME TO SWEETEN THE POT is for a seller who is entited to eight digits of dollars to get the City to sell them a “parking lot” for $500,000 still leaving 8 digets of potential selling price for their existing property where they (the Big Als owners) can become investors in the Wonderful Project for $2,000,000 now leaving just UNDER 8 digets of Millions of dollars to build and relocate Big Als. As owners of Big Als, they get nothing if financing doesnt go thru but can appreciate Millions and Millions of dollars if it does go thru by just throwing a couple million back into the pot of ownership potential in the Wonderful Project.
Both of the previously approved locations will cost to purchase and in the case of 414 Hamilton lots more than the $500,000 to redevelop, the City will sell to them thereby maximising their ability to invest in candidates that make ridiculus statements.
As Deep Throat said “Follow the Money” Good advice in the 70’s and better advice now.
The only connection that can be made is the inability of the Developer to secure financing and this little “find the pea” switch is an opportunity to use some of the $37,000,000 in public funds to close the private financing gap that has remained opened for years since the 72 hours take it or leave it proposal in Dec 2009.
You asked, I answered, but recognise I am not in the puppet column for the Wonderful Project or inside information so The Councilmen that are feining crisis “if a Childrens Day Center objects” should be consulted for their intimate knowledge of the Wonderful Project.
isn’t national socialism wonderful?
Thanks Gary. Clear as mud!
Btw.. who was it that said building was going to start in January???
150 , was that you?
I’m still waiting…
The hot rumor was that the closing would take place in January. Just another date gone by now.
Big Al’s were set up shop wherever Big Al’s wants and our diligent City Council will help them. Never mind what taxpayers want, sorry.
Ha. I used to work at Big Al’s. I recall seeing you in there several times, Mr. Sandberg. Thanks for the HUGE tip last year!!!!
District 150. Let me simplify it. The developer has not raised enough private capital and was still searching for banks to commit to loans for the project as recently as december. The deadline for the Developer was to have been December 31, 2010 to submit the finalized plans, etc. However without the financing he can’t do this. What was told publically during the council meeting was that all money was secured. Clearly it hasn’t and no one questions what rich people say to the council…Look at the BS with the Museum deal. Big Als is offered a buyout for the property. Part to paid for by tax payers and part was supposed to be funded by private money that doesn’t yet exist. Big Al’s looked at a couple of locations one was fought by Riverside I believe. yet both were viable. Additonally the city parking lot apparantly looked good to someone, so if the city cuts a deal by selling the land at reduced value then the developer spends less of his “funds” and turns out more profitable to him. As far as the councilman’s statement on tonight’s news about the possibility of the project getting killed or moving to east Peoria, Neither will happen due to policital involvement (strangely absent from recent campaign literature by the way) East Peoria told Matthews a flat “no” to his recent attempt at a hotel deal over there and I assure you those involved will spend as many tax dollars they can to ensure this project is completed.. “Can I have a ‘won’t someone think of the children'”? And no my resources are not Gary. I would also guess that after elections the developer will come back with his hand out and we will give him whatever he wants, $14 million deficit and all.
Thanks Paul, I understand all that.
My question was specifically about Big Als, and what their relocation had to do with the Marriott project.
Clearly, as I have said many times, financing is the major issue here….
Soceity cannot flourish unless its labor is reinvested into the means that provide its income, the production of goods of value. I cannot build a factory next to a day care, but encourage a worthless “service” instead. Also, follow the money to the Lawyers pockets. The “mob” that inks the deal, with our wages. My Grandpa always said, son, Politicians are evil, they lie about their opponents, deceiving the listener. I now understand why he could not bring himself to “vote”, anytime. He was a P.O.W.
My understanding is that it IS financing. My understanding that that the project is not fully financed although this is denied by the councilman I communicated this with. I believe there was a “deal” made with the establishment’s owner. Relocation would have been part of that agreement. For whatever reassons those sites are not being utilized. If the owner digs in his heels as the agreement is breeched then he can hold the project hostage. The city could use emminment domain for a private project like with Midtown if it chooses. My concern is that the cost of moving the business will be a further drain on the taxpayers and additional benefits will be given to the developer at the expense of the taxpayers, much like this project to begin with. If it is such a Wonderful project, why is it conspiciously absent from campaign literate?
Who all was at the liquor Commission “hearing” on Monday afternoon? Can anyone possibly obtain a transcript and post it somewhere? It was beyond ludicrous–It was psychotic, and I have the experience and credentials to make that call. By their own admission, they were not there to consider public input, but to fulfill a token requirement.
This morning I checked with the City Clerk on the composition of that noble body, and apparently all are appointees of the mayor, which in turn would put unilateral power for granting same back into one person’s hands if that is true.
Paul– Wouldn’t eminent domain be a cheaper solution? Does anybody have any idea to what extent this is run by organized crime, or is it dumb to even raise the question? If so, is anybody addressing the greater issue of the extent to which organized crime is being allowed to run the city?
While we’re at it, how much money does Sonni Williams get as a yearly salary, and what’s the chance City Legal could have some positions cut, too?