The Journal Star didn’t publish its pro-intergovernmental-agreement editorial online today, so I can’t link to it. But I’m still going to comment on it. I think everyone is aware that District 150 and the Peoria Park District on March 29, 2006, signed a Letter of Intent to enter into an intergovernmental agreement that would allow the school district to build a new school at the corner of Frye and Prospect using a combination of acquired parcels and shared Glen Oak Park land. The Journal Star thinks the park board should stick by that agreement, despite public outcry against it.
The Journal Star editors’ thesis is summed up in the first sentence:
If the Peoria Park Board were to pull the rug out now from beneath its partnership with District 150 regarding the construction of a new school in upper Glen Oak Park, just eight months after effectively greenlighting the project, it would represent an act of bad faith not only against District 150, but against its own taxpayers.
That sentence is the epitome of spin. First of all, what represents “an act of bad faith…against its own taxpayers” is the park district violating the Open Meetings Act to hammer out an agreement with the school board in secret (there’s a lawsuit still pending on that matter), and the school board subsequently acting on a letter of intent as if it were legally binding.
Secondly, the taxpayers don’t want the school in the park! The Journal Star Editorial Board (JSEB) can’t seem to get that through their heads. If the park district were to cancel their participation in this project, it would show — contrary to the JSEB’s assertions — that they were acting in good faith, listening to the taxpayers, and making amends for their earlier errors.
The JSEB then writes this whopper:
[A]ny misgivings Park Board member Roger Allen and perhaps others had about this project should have been voiced publicly before March 29, when the two boards agreed to go forward, and before District 150 spent $877,500 purchasing eight private properties next to the park. Even if it was premature of District 150 to begin buying homes before it had the park district’s rock-solid OK, there was time for the park board to say “whoa” before it got this far.
No kidding. Apparently the park board didn’t realize this would be so unpopular with the public, otherwise they wouldn’t have signed the letter of intent in the first place. Which is why it might have been a good idea to not have secret meetings in violation of the Open Meetings Act in the first place. Those laws are there for a reason — and one of them is to protect the park board from foolish mistakes like this one.
If a majority of the park board follows Allen’s lead [i.e., changing their minds] …they’ll have some real explaining to do to [the] taxpayers.
Au contraire; if a majority of the park board continues to ignore the public and act on secret deals, then they’ll have some explaining to do to taxpayers.
Despite feigned concern for taxpayers, the JSEB in the very next paragraph implies that those same taxpayers are either malicious (spreading misinformation; suing the park board), or stupid (believing misinformation), or simply ungrateful (for not embracing a new East Bluff school at any cost).
There’s more, which you can read below (just click the “show more” link to read the whole editorial), but those are the main points.
If the Peoria Park Board were to pull the rug out now from beneath its partnership with District 150 regarding the construction of a new school in upper Glen Oak Park, just eight months after effectively greenlighting the project, it would represent an act of bad faith not only against District 150, but against its own taxpayers. The park board meets Wednesday at Lincoln Middle School to discuss the issue.
We appreciate that the letter of intent the two sides signed was not legally binding. But any misgivings Park Board member Roger Allen and perhaps others had about this project should have been voiced publicly before March 29, when the two boards agreed to go forward, and before District 150 spent $877,500 purchasing eight private properties next to the park. Even if it was premature of District 150 to begin buying homes before it had the park district’s rock-solid OK, there was time for the park board to say “whoa” before it got this far.
District 150’s taxpayers are the park district’s taxpayers. If District 150’s taxpayers are out $877,500, so are the park district’s taxpayers out $877,500, and potentially for nothing. If a majority of the park board follows Allen’s lead – “Frankly, I’ve changed my mind. I think there are some awfully good reasons for not having a school built on park grounds … I’m not willing to sacrifice even an inch of the parking lot” – they’ll have some real explaining to do to those taxpayers.
We understand that this is not a popular project, and that the public pressure has been intense. We also know that much of the misinformation being spread has reached wild, urban myth proportions. Unless a parking lot is considered green space, not a blade of grass in Glen Oak Park is imperiled. No question, this situation could have been handled better by all involved. No doubt the park board isn’t thrilled about being sued for its role in this. At times we’ve thought District 150 had so little support that it should take its community-school efforts elsewhere and fight this East Bluff battle another day. But at this juncture that should be the School Board’s call.
Either the park board stands by its commitments – including its handshakes – or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then why would anyone partner with them on any future project? These two entities have a long history of cooperation. A park district at war with its local school district is every bit as self-defeating as a combative city. People who abandon the schools and the city won’t be around to use the parks, no matter how wonderful they are.
By all means, District 150 should get park board members the site plans they need, though its leaders have been a bit preoccupied with other matters of late. Absolutely, park officials are entitled to have their questions answered and their concerns alleviated. If District 150 won’t or can’t deliver, then you pull the plug. Otherwise you try and work it out.
CJ: Well, per the LOI — ‘The purpose of this Letter is solely to provide our counsel with a basis for commencing preparation of an actually the LOI
Shame on the school and park districts for spending that much money on a plan that no taxpayer in their right mind would support. Why leave a large building vacant only to build a new one in the same neighborhood and make park space into a schoolyard? Peoria has no shortage of large vacant buildings. There is no reason to throw good money after bad.
CJ: Correct — talk about SPIN! 🙁
I would agree to disagree with you —-the LOI is for commencing the preparation of an IGA not to definitely enter into an IGA.
Per the LOI — page 2
(1) “This Letter of Intent is preliminary and is not intended to be legally binding on the School District or the Park District.”
(2) “The purpose of this Letter is solely to provide our counsel with a basis for commencing preparation of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).”
(3) “Accordingly, the terms and provisions of the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement summarized herein may be changed or modified in any respect.”
This paragraph —- from the PJSEB —
We appreciate that the letter of intent the two sides signed was not legally binding. But any misgivings Park Board member Roger Allen and perhaps others had about this project should have been voiced publicly before March 29, when the two boards agreed to go forward, and before District 150 spent $877,500 purchasing eight private properties next to the park. Even if it was premature of District 150 to begin buying homes before it had the park district’s rock-solid OK, there was time for the park board to say “whoa†before it got this far.
The PROPOSED (emphasis mine) IGA (if we ever get to that point) can be changed or modifed in any respect. —
That is EXACTLY the point — nevertheless, the PPD Board NEVER, I repeat NEVER TALKED about this project IN PUBLIC prior to March 29, 2006.
And exactly when was the PPD Board going to say WHOA? — The PPD Board already knew that the PSD 150 was in the process of purchasing property prior to March 29, during the ‘closed session meetings’ in March.
So when does the PHSEB suggest that the PPD should have accomplished that public discussion?
Exactly when would that public discussion by the PPD have occurred without this lawsuit being filed?
It is 11 Dec 2006 and on 13 Dec 2006 — the PPD is still trying to determine what D150 is proposing and there is still no IGA, even in draft form (supposedly).
The PJSEB is out of touch with reality and the citizens/taypayers of Peoria. The editorial board has had several discussions/meetings with the PSD administrators for certain and perhaps the PPD administrators too — however, not once has the PJSEB contacted the plaintiffs in this lawsuit to seek to understand what this is all about. It is sad that the class – caste system in Peoria continues to work within the PJSEB boardroom.
Until our community at all levels promotes unity among and across and between all levels — we are all headed for the compost heap.
OK, I’m going to act as devil’s advocate here …
C. J. states emphatically “the taxpayers don’t want the school in the park!”
What’s your evidence for that? Certainly a few very vocal citizens don’t want the school in the park, but has some referendum been done on this issue to truly gauge the will of the people?
I honestly don’t know the answer to this question, and you certainly may be right, C. J.
Knight — The East Bluff United Neighborhood Association is against it. They represent the largest stakeholders in this matter — the homeowners and, thus, property-tax-payers who live in the East Bluff where the school is to be built. The City of Peoria (municipal corporation) is not in favor of it, and has worked in a couple of different ways to try to help the school district keep the school at the current site of Frye and Wisconsin. The Heart of Peoria Commission, in a position paper recently endorsed by the City, showed why it would be better to keep the school out of the park site. It’s more than “a few very vocal citizens.”
Unfortunately, we’ll never see a referendum on the matter. In fact, just to make sure that none of their construction plans ever have to face the voters directly, the school board recently lobbied for and succeeded in getting passed SB2477, which allows the school board to borrow money through the Public Building Commission without having to get approval from the voters/taxpayers.
Where do I start?
CJ, the Heart of Peoria Commission is partly YOU and you are one of the most vocal anti-new school opponents. Don’t hide behind the commission. It doesn’t help your cause. You helped write that anti-new school piece as a member of the commission. There are some really flimsy reasons as to why you (the commission) says it is such a bad location. If you can look at it objectively, the park site is certainly not so terrible. Peoria is not losing much in the way of park space. Peoria has 9,000 acres of parks. New York City maintains 28,0000 acres of parks. I think they are more than 4 times the size of Peoria? Would you say New York City is known for it’s park spaces? Glen Oak Park is way under-utilized as it is.
How do you draw in new residents with children and not keep draining off the existing ones to other school districts? Where else would you build a replacement school? Maybe you would feel better if D150 spent $100,000+ on a “study” to determine that the building is better off being replaced and then built a new one? Don’t you think that a study would come out the way they wanted it to in the first place? Sure, they have gone about getting it started in a poor manner. I’ll surely give you that.
If they(D150 board) really want it, it is going to be done. The question then becomes “Will you help in getting it done properly or attempt to hinder it every step of the way?”
Yes, the HOPC is partly me — for about the last two months now. The Heart of Peoria Plan (on which our position paper was based) was written four years ago — long before I was on the Commission and three years before I started blogging. Also, Beth Akeson wrote the draft of our position paper; I made two minor revisions to it, neither of which changed the central thesis. The commission voted on it and had the support of all commissioners present. Akeson is also the one who put it on the agenda and is doing the presentations on it. So, I feel it has more weight than you give it. It’s not like I run the commission, you know; I’m just a rookie. I notice you skipped over the part of my response about the East Bluff Neighborhood Association — of which I’m not a part — being against the proposed park siting.
You ask, “How do you draw in new residents with children and not keep draining off the existing ones to other school districts?”
You draw them in by creating/maintaining safe, attractive neighborhoods with safe, financially solvent schools that have good student achievement. Taking the school out of the center of the neighborhood and leaving an abandoned building destabilizes the neighborhood (ask yourself, “would I like to live near an abandoned school building?”). Building a new school instead of rehabbing a structurally-solid existing building could hurt the district’s financial situation — yes, a real study should be done to determine whether the existing building can be reused, and that study needn’t cost $100,000. (But even if it did, what’s a hundred grand in light of a new $20 million building? If the money saved by building a new school is enough to cover the $20 million cost, those savings could also easily cover the cost of such a study, right?) New buildings do not improve student achievement. Nor do new buildings alone attract young families. Do you know of anyone who moved to Dunlap or Germantown Hills because they have newer school buildings? The reasons I hear people are moving is because of low student-teacher ratios, good student achievement, low crime, and lower taxes.
The school district and the city do need to work together, and the city has shown a willingness to work together. Bob Manning put together a terrific compromise that would have given the school district an unprecedented amount of city money and provided 10 acres of land in the middle of the neighborhood. But the school board wants it their way or no way. They’re completely inflexible, even when their criteria is totally arbitrary (such as their insistence on building on 15 acres of land), and even when their inflexibility may hurt their chances of getting additional city assistance in the future.
You say, “If they (D150 board) really want it, it is going to be done. The question then becomes ‘Will you help in getting it done properly or attempt to hinder it every step of the way?'”
That’s a non sequitur. If I grant your premise in the first statement — that the school board is going to do what it wants regardless of what anyone else thinks — then the question that follows is meaningless. They’re no more likely to listen to the public on how to “[get] it done properly” either.
I don’t subscribe to the idea of throwing one’s hands up in apathy and saying, “it’s going to happen anyway.” God help us if everyone did that. I want to be clear here that I feel that this is a disagreement in methods, not motive. I believe that the school board members and myself all love Peoria and want nothing but success for the city, schools, and citizens. But I (and others) think the path the school board has chosen will do more harm than good in this case, and I don’t think there’s any shame in trying to influence public policy in a way that we feel will make Peoria and its schools better and stronger.
Thank you for your response, C. J. I knew about the City and HOPC opposition, but not the neighborhood association.
C. J.’s absolutely right about new buildings not drawing new people into school districts. New buildings go up in places like Dunlap BECAUSE more people are moving in and they need more space to accomodate them. They’re not the source of the population influx. Making that association is putting the care before the horse.
Ummm … cart … sorry.