A while back, there was a motion to require a supermajority vote to approve institutional zoning boundary changes. That motion failed. As it turns out, that initiative was moot because Bradley’s request to change their boundaries passed 10-1 last night.

There was a lot of talk about the importance of strong neighborhoods last night. Bradley and the neighborhoods have a symbiotic relationship, it was said. Bradley needs the neighborhoods surrounding it to be strong because that’s a reflection on the university. The neighborhoods need the stabilizing force of the university to remain strong neighborhoods, they say.

If that’s true (and I think it is, theoretically), then why is Bradley doing so much damage to their relationship with the neighborhoods by their unilateral behavior? Why are they destabilizing the Arbor District — the neighborhood to their immediate west?

There can be no doubt that the Arbor District has been destabilized, despite any protestations to the contrary. The president of the Arbor District’s neighborhood association, Mr. Wagner, stood up at the meeting and told the council members that in the 800 block of Cooper alone, thirteen homes had been converted from single-family, owner-occupied residences to rentals. Is this Bradley’s idea of a stable neighborhood: One where owners are moving out and absentee landlords are buying up their property?

Bradley likes to portray itself as neighborhood-friendly, but only when it serves their purpose. In my opinion, they’re opportunistic. They point with pride to the public meetings last fall and this February when they “communicated” with the neighbors. But this was one-way communication, not two-way collaboration. The major components of their plan, such as the parking deck, were non-negotiable.

Marjorie Klise got it right when she said that the issue here is not just the ends, but the means. She gave the best analogy of the flawed nature of this process when she addressed the council:

[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/Klise-03132007-Council.mp3]

Bradley would just as soon forget about the past and start moving forward from here. Forget about the process that got us here and look at their commitments for the future. Consider their “commitment” to the neighborhood, measured in dollars invested and conditions agreed to, like this one from staff:

Bradley University shall continue the positive ongoing communication strategy with surrounding neighborhood associations. Prior to each implementation of the improvements in the official development plan, Bradley University shall initiate timely discussion with the impacted and nearby neighborhood associations. Bradley University shall work with the neighborhood to stabilize and improve off-premise student housing, increase home ownership in nearby neighborhoods, and encourage a mutually beneficial campus-neighborhood relationship.

That sounds lovely, but there’s no enforcement mechanism. Ask yourself this, if Bradley started stonewalling the neighborhoods tomorrow in direct violation of this clause, what would happen? What could or would the city do? If past actions are any indication, the answer is nothing. Consider that the city couldn’t get Bradley to pave a gravel parking lot for the past 15 years. If they can’t enforce something as simple, obvious, and tangible as that, how are they ever going to enforce something as nebulous as “initiat[ing] timely discussion with the impacted and nearby neighborhood associations”?

By passing this ordinance last night, the city council tacitly endorsed Bradley’s tactics and offered no real assurance to the surrounding neighborhoods that this wouldn’t happen again in another 10-15 years. Instead of “removing doubt,” like Mrs. Klise said the city indicated was the purpose of institutional zoning, last night’s action has increased doubt. And that doubt will lead to more speculation along Cooper and other surrounding streets.

There were a lot of good sound bites about communication and neighborhood stability, but it was all belied by a vote that gave Bradley everything it wanted, and left the neighborhoods with the same empty promises they’ve had all along. Bradley’s plan should have been denied.