That’s one of the questions that will be debated at the West Bluff Council Redistricting Forum taking place tonight in the Michel Student Center Ballroom at Bradley University starting at 7 p.m. Of course, the West Bluff will be looking at it from their perspective (i.e., will it be good for the West Bluff to be included in the first district?).
Here’s one interesting point for the neighborhoods to consider from that perspective. In the last election (earlier this year), there were 552 ballots cast in the West Bluff (precincts 15 through 20), and there were 654 ballots cast in the entire first district (precincts 1 through 14). Additionally, on the proposed map, downtown moves out of the first district and into the third. Downtown (precinct 12) accounted for 105 of those first district votes in the last election. This would indicate that, if the proposed map were adopted and the West Bluff got moved to the first district, the West Bluff would likely have quite a bit of influence in the election of the first district representative.
Of course, it would also be a good idea to look at this from another perspective: Is having the West Bluff (and their influence) included in the first district good for the first district?
I think that I might be able to understand what the West Bluff residents might be feeling.
There is always a dilemma about what constitutes appropriate representation. Living in the North Valley, we have been in the First District for past 17+ plus years. Andre Bohannon did a good job of in representing his constituents. You may not always agree with each other, nevertheless he was a straight shooter and you knew what he thought! Chris Duncan helped us to pass an ordinance for residents to roll back their zoning to match the comprehensive plan without having to pay all the fees … that was awesome! After their departure, that has not been the experience for some of the residents’ here and it feels like some North Valley residents live in Forgotonia where representation is not at the level residents would want it to be … phone calls not returned on a timely basis, telling residents one thing to find out the vote on the council floor is the exact opposite position, just my experience specifically that can be documented so as to avoid any allegations of libel. I am sure other residents love the First District Council rep. Different people have different experiences.
Cj thank you for helping us to better understand via the voting data. If the West Bluff would be able to maintain their numbers then perhaps they would still be able to have the type of representation that they would like to have.
I like a map configuration which places the North Valley is in with the Third and using the dividing line via I-74. I would certainly vote for a different rep. for the Third if that option were available for the next election cycle.
If this happens what it means is Gulley is gone. I really want to run for the 1st when it comes up but I doubt I will if the west bluff is added. I am sure someone more qualified will run against Christmas Gulley.
Seriously… Emtronics has a new excuse as to why he won’t run! Anyone surprised???
The discussion tonight centered mostly around whether to retain cumulative voting and At-Large Representatives. That the West Bluff would be added to part of the 1st district seemed mostly a forgone conclusion with having 5 districts. The audience seemed to favor moving toward a 10 district council or an 8 district council with 2 at larges. To do away with cumulative voting would likely require a revisitation in federal court. The plaintiffs from the original court decision would get a significant say in this process. A public referendum would also likely be required before replacing the current system.
It is worth noting that the plaintiffs wanted a 10 district council. What they got, the current 5 n 5, is not what they asked for or sought. From what I gathered in the discussion the 5n5 replaced an 8n2.
There is a study to be released soon by the Political Science department at Bradley looking at cumulative voting systems. It will highlight unexpected effects.
A forum by the parties of the plaintiffs, similar to the one held by the West Bluff Council, is to be held later this week (tomorrow night?). They don’t like the maps. Could be worthwhile to attend as they will play a key roll in replacing cumulative voting.
There may be minutes for the meeting. The person who records the Council’s minutes was there along with Councilpersons; Weaver, Sandberg, BVA, Ardis, Gulley, Akeson.
If CJ Runs for the first, why should I bother?
The WBC wants the West Bluff to stay together. According to Map #12, it does. What they don’t like is switching districts. They don’t want to be associated with “that” district. It was said that they want to be in the district with the councilperson they elected. BVA has certainly caused a divide in her district with her shanigans. It sounds like they think Gulley couldn’t do a good job because he doesn’t live “up here.” What they fail to recognize is that a lot of the issues we face here on the West Bluff they face in the valley as well. The only difference is that most of those who reside in the valley don’t have the option of moving, unlike those who live in the WB.
If you don’t want to be associated with people in the valley then don’t live in such close proximity to it. Move north, I’m sure they’d be happy to have you.
Mama, do your quote marks indicate things that were actually said at the meeting by West Bluff residents, or do they indicate what you think their unspoken motives might be? I wasn’t at the meeting, so I’m just curious.
They often referred to the 1st district as “that” district if it wasn’t specifically named and they did refer to living “up here” rather than in the valley. I questioned them about their wording and was told that I misinterpreted what they said. As hubby and I walked home we discussed it because I wondered if they were right. He acknowledged that that was what was said. It just sounded wrong. Like the elephant in the room that no one wanted to acknowledge.
FTR, I’m not well received at WBC meetings because I don’t always fall into their schemes without question. There are a lot of things they do and say that really rub me the wrong way. Sometimes I wonder how much their neighborhood associations know about what they decide “in the best interest of their neighborhoods” or if they are just blindly accepted as knowing what is best. This is an argument for another time. Willing to meet for a coffee if you want to talk about it further.
I looked for you, BTW.
I’m not sure where Mama is coming from, but it sounds like she was at a different meeting than the one I was a part of. There was no mention of “that” district, any denegation of the good people who currently inhabit the 1st district, or of Councilman Gully. Frankly, I take exception to Mama’s assertions of racism and elitism. Ascribing those motives to others here is just plain wrong and I do not appreciate it. I’m not sure where the chip on Mama’s shoulder came from but I invite her to more thoroughly examine her own motives before she casts aspersions on those of others.
Conrad,
perhaps she was included in the email from a president of one of the associations describing the concerns of some of the west bluff residents of being in the first distrcit citing it as a negative perception.
I think you might have been included as well.
You’re wrong about that, Checking. I received no such email and have heard no such argument from any association president. Mama is out of line here.
I too was in attendance at the meeting last night and heard no one refer to “that” district in reference to the 1st district. There were references to the need for the West Bluff neighborhoods to remain together because of a shared history and tradition — I heard nothing to indicate that WB residents didn’t want to be in a district with those below the hill. Actually there were concerns raised that the move of the WB to the 1st district would be detrimental to the current residents and their equitable representation.
Also, the rationale provided for staying within the 2nd district was stated as being due to the knowledge that the current 2nd district councilperson has about the unique history and needs of the WB. However, confidence was expressed that Mr. Gulley would be able to provide competent representation if the WB did move to the 1st district as laid out in the map #12 plan.
Mama is not out of line Conrad! Whether you heard it or not, it was said. It even came out of your mouth once. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Snuggling up to BVA while she is your councilperson, while trying to stay on positive terms with Gulley. I understand not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you, but at least own up to it.
Not once did anyone mention how we could possibly make WBC an even better council by becoming part of the 1st district. This was all about making sure that WBC’s political force was heard.
WB and District 1 have a lot of similar issues (rentals, slum landlords, investments, and crime) but no one on WBC exec board wanted to admit that. The exec board sat up there all high and mighty. Never offered, even once, to reach out a hand to Councilman Gulley and make the redistricting a positive experience for all involved. That would have been the best thing to come out of this meeting. Instead, all t hat came out was a bunch of talk about cumulative voting, changing the number of districts and how to keep WB isolated at the top of the hill.
Kudos to you WBC! You are the new elite! Lord help the little man living in Peoria, more specifically the 1st district.
Looks like when you say something that is widely unpopular with the WB powers-that-be you are labeled a liar. Nice way to encourage residents to speak up. Would you like me to not point out the short-sightedness of the WBC? Oh, right, they are never wrong!
Is that why Councilman Gulley came up to me after the meeting and asked how much he owed me for my having called him a “decent guy” during the meeting? Most everyone who attended the meeting was concerned with the West Bluff staying in one district. Map 12 is going to be discussed by the Council, but, as even the Mayor admitted, was not a final solution. I did say that whatever district we ended up in, we would make it work with the district rep. I don’t appreciate you twisting my words, Mama. I definitely do not appreciate you disparaging the good people of the West Bluff Council or the association reps who were at the meeting last night. You are doing them a grave disservice and I think you owe them an apology for your gross misrepresentation of the positions that were articulated.
Conrad: Just trying to understand …. your use of ‘decent’ …. in describing Clyde as in ‘fairly good’ or ‘marked by moral integrity’ or or or ?
** conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality b : modestly clothed
** free from immodesty or obscenity
** fairly good : adequate, satisfactory
** marked by moral integrity, kindness, and goodwill
Then do you have a personal firsthand example of Councilman Gulley that would be able to support ‘decent’?
Really just trying to understand what is the basis of your use of the word decent. Thank you for your help.
About 10 years ago, I sent a letter to the council objecting to a sole source contract, to be awarded to an out of state firm. It was for a study similar what my company had done for the State of Illinois. Clyde called me and asked if the City had put that out to bid. “Not to my knowledge,” I replied. He called me back later that day, confirmed that it had not been put out to open bid and told me he would oppose it at the Council meeting. He and Sandburg were able to convince the whole Council, including then-Mayor Ransburg (who was behind the proposed Sole Source) to vote it down. I appreciated Clyde’s follow-up, as well as his pleasant demeanor and willingness to deal with that issue (particularly since I was not even in his district). My (admittedly few) dealings with him have always been pleasant, though I haven’t been a fan of his voting record on issues like the Marriott Project or the Museum block. I’d give him the 3rd point, at least. Like I said, I’m sure the WB will find a way to work with whoever represents us in whatever district we end up in.
Conrad. Your response gives credibility to Mama. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 1st District was described just as Mama depicted. Considering all that is going on in the 1st, who could blame the WBC for not wanting to be a part of “that”?
A couple of things: First Gulley is useless as our rep. I know I live in the first. He says on thing and goes the other way. Nothing has come to the first and don’t include the Griswold project as that as been on the books for years. Also, his church friends try and get away with little things like adding a driveway where it’s against code. It was pointed out be neighbors and Gulley back peddled on her too. She had to remove the work at her expense.
Two: To the troll “what name?” about me running or not and excuses I had for not doing it last time. It’s none of your frickin business and you have no idea what I went through because of the illness I got that left me out of work for a year. Normally I would have told you to pack it in your a$$ but this is a friendly blog so I won’t.
Conrad: Thanks for your candor. I would agree that that was ‘decent’ representation.
Regrettably, living in the First and represented by Clyde, my experiences have not been the same. One example …. Please recall the YWCA housing project. Clyde repeatedly told the North Valley neighbors that he would vote against this project which meant he would vote against the Y building this project and support the neighbors to not have this project in our neighborhood. The night of the vote, Clyde and Gary Sandberg were interviewed about the Y project on Outside the Horseshoe prior to the council meeting around 5:30 pm. I was allowed to sit in on the live and being recorded interview as long as I was as quiet as a mouse. Clyde again said that he would vote with the neighbors. Sometime between 7 and 7:30 pm that night, Clyde makes the motion to approve the Y project. Discussion ensues and Clyde votes on the side of the Y. Betrayal of his constitutents.
Perhaps Clyde does not do this type of flip-flopping anymore, I can only hope so for constituents’ sakes so that Cldye’s behavior will more like the fourth point.
Sorry, just reading between the lines of her comments, but it sounds like Mama has a bit of an inferiority complex. Look, no one is disrespecting the Valley neighborhoods here. But to ask a councilman to be truly attentive to the needs of both the West Bluff and the Valley neighborhoods is simply asking too much. Yes, we share some common issues such as crime. But the West Bluff has unique needs, such as dealing with Bradley University’s hungry appetite to gobble up our homes, such as making sure our historic homes, (that many of us have sunk life savings into), are protected with strong historic district guidelines. I certainly don’t think I’m better than anyone in the Valley. But because I choose to live here with my family, I do want to make sure the unique needs of our West Bluff neighborhoods are addressed by a council person who is attentive to our needs. So please stop the class warfare crap. It simply doesn’t work.
The West Bluff neighborhoods are currently lumped in with the central bluff neighborhoods in District 2. Is having a a council seat tied to both of these areas and having a council person truly attentive to the needs of both the West Bluff and the Central Bluff asking too much? Or does the West Bluff and their unique needs warrant a council seat just for the West Bluff? There isn’t sufficient population – the West Bluff has to be lumped in with some other neighborhoods.
Kohlrabi–
You are indeed right when you state, “the West Bluff and their unique needs warrant a council seat just for the West Bluff.” They don’t want to be lumped in with any other group. They want to be their own special entity.
And let me add that many of us on the West Bluff could easily move to Germantown or Dunlap – where we could leave our doors unlocked and still pay LOWER TAXES! But instead we’ve chosen to live in Peoria’s oldest neighborhoods and fix up these old houses we love and try to add stability to the area by standing up against crime, absentee landlords, loud music, litter, dangerous pit bulls, an incompetent school district, etc.. The same inner-city stuff that affects every neighborhood. So don’t give me that elitism bullcrap.
*
The City can lump us in with any district they choose. But I believe the West Bluff neighborhoods will continue to stick together to resolve challenging issues.
Not elitism bullcrap – just clarifying what your said “But to ask a councilman to be truly attentive to the needs of both the West Bluff and the Valley neighborhoods is simply asking too much.” It would be ideal if the councilmen/women would be attentive to the needs of the neighborhoods/residents in their districts. Doesn’t always happen.
Get out of the COP and D150 if you can…