Tag Archives: Barbara Van Auken

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Van Auken begs school board for what the Council denies

28 Comments

I about spit out my soda when I read this in an article about District 150’s board meeting Monday night:

Some, including City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken, asked the board to halt any decisions.

“I’m here to beg you — defer these decision until you have some community outreach,” said Van Auken, who represents District 2, which includes Columbia Middle School, 2612 N. Bootz Ave. “If you have a bad process, you’re going to have a bad outcome.”

Well, I agree with that statement 100%. But I have a few questions: Where was Council Member Van Auken when the City Council rammed through a $39 million hotel deal with only a single business day of public notice and no “community outreach” whatsoever? Where was her concern over “bad process” then? Why didn’t she “beg” the council to defer that decision?

Van Auken’s admonishment kind of reminds me of the Heart of Peoria Plan: something that’s adopted in principle but ignored in practice.

City Council, City of Peoria, Signs

Van Auken misses “Golden” opportunity

25 Comments

There I was Tuesday, beating the newspaper against my head after reading this:

The city’s Planning & Growth Management Department believes [Golden Corral’s] proposed sign is too big, much more so than what is allowed in the city ordinance. Proposals have the sign at 40-foot, 215-square-feet tall [sic]. The city requires 25-foot-tall, 70-square-foot signs for businesses such as Golden Corral […]

Russ Hruby of RJH Management Corp. said the company is willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided upon by the zoning commission or City Council. […]

[Second District City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken says,] “We’re going to work with them and give them as close to the size as they want,” she said. “That area is a little unique in that way that there is a lot of big signs on University. While we like to get signs smaller, we have to be realistic. As new businesses locate there, they have big signs to compete with.”

Think about that for a minute and let it sink in:

Here’s a developer who is locating on University Street between War Memorial Drive and Forrest Hill — a stretch of road that is the epitome of poor urban design, and probably the most often-cited example of visual clutter in the City. Presumably, city officials would like to see the area improved and would jump at the opportunity to start scaling down the signs to bring them in line with the sign ordinance.

And it gets better! The developer says he’s “willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided upon by the zoning commission or City Council” — unlike Westlake Shopping Center which intimidated the City Council into giving it a big ordinance-busting sign by claiming its then-secret tenant (later revealed to be Fresh Market) would not locate there if they couldn’t have a humongous sign. No, this developer is very happy with the City, and doesn’t perceive the city as unfriendly to business. In fact, he’s quoted as saying, “It’s not an adversarial position at all…. Peoria has been (accommodating).”

What an opportunity! No threats, no intimidation. A new business on University street willing to abide by the code! Could this be the start of cleaning up University and reducing visual clutter? Could this business’s sign compliance be used as a shining, positive example for other businesses who locate there in the future?

Enter Barbara Van Auken, Second District Council Representative.

“We’re going to work with them and give them as close to the size as they want,” she said [emphasis mine]. What? Why in the world would you want to do that? “That area is a little unique in that way that there is a lot of big signs on University….” Hmmm, “unique” is one word for it; “ugly” is another. “Blighted” fits the bill, too.

“While we like to get signs smaller, we have to be realistic. As new businesses locate there, they have big signs to compete with.” I’m not sure whether this is doublespeak or just plain self-contradiction. If Councilwoman Van Auken really would “like to get signs smaller,” then she logically would not “give them as close to the size as they want,” which is three times the size allowed by ordinance and twice as big as the McDonald’s sign across the street, especially after the developer has already stated for the record that he’s “willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided.”

So the bottom line is that signs will continue to escalate in size along University, unless the rest of the council does the right thing and upholds the sign ordinance. The unwritten rule on the council is that you always vote for what the district council member wants for a project in his or her district. That’s a poor policy in general, and one that definitely should be disregarded in this case.

For those of you who like visuals, I drew this in Google Sketch-Up to show you a comparison of the maximum sign allowed by ordinance (on the left) versus the size of the sign requested by Golden Corral (on the right). These are to scale. Note also the size of an average human at the bottom:

City of Peoria, General News

Main Street Commons update (UPDATED 2x)

12 Comments

Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken has just forwarded me the promised press release from Devonshire Group regarding the proposed Main Street Commons development. I’ll comment on it later. For now, here it is in full:

New Student Housing and Retail Development
Begins Construction in Peoria

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Shawn Luesse
Tel: 217-403-3300
Cell: 217-840-3823
Email: shawnl@devonshire-realty.com

Devonshire Group and Oxbow Development will begin construction this summer of Main Street Commons, a 184-bed mixed-use complex at the northwest corner of Main and Bourland in Peoria. The two-phase student housing project will offer such amenities as a multi-layered security system, concierge service, 8,000 square feet of retail lease space, a swimming pool, tanning facilities and a 24-hour fitness center. Enhancing the options available to Bradley University students, Main Street Commons will open late summer 2011 with availability for the 2011-2012 academic year.

Main Street Commons is being developed by Oxbow Development and Devonshire Group. Oxbow Development, based in the Quad Cities, has extensive experience with projects similar to Main Street Commons having developed several student focused living communities on and near campus’ throughout the Midwest. Oxbow managing member Ben Eastep states, “I am excited to partner with Devonshire on this venture. We are proud to bring a first class product to Bradley University.”

Devonshire Group, based in Champaign, utilizes their Single Source Solutions approach encompassing real estate development services including civil engineering, mechanical, electrical, structural and environmental engineering, title services, and architectural services. Devonshire’s expertise and services along with Oxbow’s experience with student housing, combine to offer an upscale option for Bradley University students.

Bradley University, a strong supporter of the project, continues to experience strong enrollments which include expectations for another large freshman class for the fall 2010 semester. Main Street Commons will allow Bradley University to offer their students the modern, attractive, upscale housing and amenities today’s students expect from a high quality, well respected and competitive University. Bradley University President Joanne Glasser, who is committed to providing Bradley students with the best possible educational and living environment, states, “Universities that continually enroll and appreciate outstanding students and that offer a complete, enriched educational experience, understand the importance of supporting quality of life options for students. Bradley is delighted with the Main Street Commons project and its outstanding features. We know our students, faculty and staff will find Main Street Commons a welcome addition to the area.”

Area residents are also excited about the project. Golda Ewalt, who lives in the neighborhood, states “The new apartments will bring more people to our neighborhood making the area more vibrant. More people may attract more business such as restaurants. This is exactly the movement I am looking forward to seeing. The new development makes this a better place to live.”

Throughout the planning process Oxbow Development and Devonshire Group have worked closely with City of Peoria officials and Bradley University as well as local investors and Marine Bank. “I’m delighted by this significant investment on Main Street and the much-needed quality housing it will bring to Bradley University students, while enhancing the older neighborhoods that surround the project.” states Council Member Barbara Van Auken.

Equity for the project was provided by a consortium of investors primarily in the Peoria, Bloomington and Champaign area. Financing for the project is provided by Marine Bank.

Main Street Commons will be available for leasing for the 2011 fall semester and is considered Bradley University approved housing for Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors and Graduate Students. Please contact Oxbow Development for leasing information at (563) 441-3055, email info@liveatmain.com or on the web www.liveatmain.com. Leasing information for the retail space can be obtained from Thomas Harrington, III at (309) 692-7707 or tt@cbcdr.com.

UPDATE: According to Shawn Luesse, “Phase 1 is the south building on Main Street. Phase 2 is the north building on Bourland Avenue. Phase 2 is planned to start at the conclusion of phase 1 construction.” The swimming pool and pool house are part of Phase 2.

UPDATE 2: Shawn Luesse told me via e-mail earlier this week that “Phase 2 [of the project] is planned to start at the conclusion of phase 1 construction.” But what do I read in the Journal Star Thursday morning?

Phase two still is considered “proposed.”

Luesse said based on “certain parameters,” including occupancy rates, that phase two, which includes the second three-story building, swimming pool and additional off-street parking, could be completed within a year after the first phase is completed.

Well, that’s a horse of a different color. In other words, Phase 2 might not get built at all. It all depends on “certain parameters,” “including occupancy rates.”

City of Peoria, Streets

Main Street improvement plans moving ahead

27 Comments

Earlier this month I published a memo from Public Works Director Dave Barber to Second District Council Person Barbara Van Auken outlining four options for improving safety along the West Main corridor east of University Street. The Bradley Scout has since published an update with some interesting information:

…Van Auken said Option 4 from the memorandum has been selected, and city council will not vote about it unless the issue becomes much more costly. She said the decision was up to those who use the area, which includes the West Bluff Council, area businesses and Bradley.

The selected option includes lowering the speed from 30 to 25 miles per hour from Bourland Avenue to University Street and painting three and five feet buffer zones between sidewalks and the road.

“This is a way to get people to start thinking about stopping driving so close to the curb,” Van Auken said. “Ideally what we want to do is expand the sidewalk wider in that area, but we don’t have the money for it right now.”

So the changes can be made without any vote from the City Council (I find this somewhat surprising), and the plan is to move ahead with implementing Option 4, which looks like this:

As you can see, one east-bound lane of Main Street is being removed, and the remaining lanes are being shifted slightly to the south, moving traffic away from the sidewalks on both the north and south sides of the street. No on-street parking is being added between University and Underhill (shown above), but there will be some parking added to the north side of the street between Underhill and Bourland. Lowering the speed limit to 25 mph for these two blocks is the weakest part of this plan, as it will have no practical effect. If the speed limit is 30 east of Bourland and west of University, the odds of someone slowing down for 700 feet is nil.

But I’m glad some action is finally going to be taken to start making Main Street pedestrian-friendly. Getting cars further away from the curb and eventually widening the sidewalks is a small step in the right direction. It has long been suggested that an easy and cheap way to begin is by simply restriping the roadway, and that appears to be what they’re finally going to do. The changes are being made thanks to a state grant of $48,491. (This is the new trend — we use state money for basic City services, and we use City debt to subsidize private development.)

There’s a lot more that needs to be done, but this is a good start.

City of Peoria, Streets

Main Street improvements inch forward

10 Comments

I received a copy of the following memo from Peoria Public Works Director Dave Barber outlining his recommendations for improving Main Street from Glendale to University. Notable is that on-street parking will be reinstated, some sidewalks will eventually be widened, travel lanes will be reduced, and the speed limit will be lowered in some places to 25 mph. Here is the full memo (attachments are PDF files):

MEMORANDUM

To: Barbara Van Auken, City Council District 2
From: David Barber, Public Works Director
Cc: Scott Moore, City Manager
Steve Settingsgaard, Police Chief
Date: March 12, 2010

Re: Main Street Safety Improvement

In 2008 the City of Peoria, in conjunction with the local MPO, PPUATS, participated in a roadway safety assessment study sponsored by State Farm. As a part of that study, “high accident” locations in the tri-county area were reviewed. The “high accident” location focused on in the City of Peoria was the Main Street corridor, from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue, which includes the curve near Crescent Avenue. Several of the suggested safety improvements for this corridor were: install additional speed limit signs, upgrade the crosswalks, install no right turn on red signs on Sheridan Road for both northbound and southbound traffic, and to give the road a “diet” by reducing through lanes to calm traffic.

As part of the safety study, State Farm’s consultant, Opus International, assisted local municipalities in applying for safety grants to implement the proposed safety improvements. On March 24, 2009, City Council voted to approve an application to the Illinois Department of Transportation for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding to incorporate these proposed safety improvements on Main Street from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue, and to support a Capital Budget Request for the local 10% match, if grant funds were received. A safety improvement project estimated at $48,491 was submitted to IDOT. On September 24, 2009 the City received notice from IDOT that the funds were approved for construction in 2010. A striping and signage plan for Main Street from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue can be seen on Attachment A.

Attachment A shows the proposed plan to restripe Main Street from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue as a three lane cross-section, with one through lane in each direction and a bi-directional center left turn lane. This will be accomplished by dropping a westbound through lane at Globe Avenue and an eastbound through lane at Sheridan Road. Potential proposed parking is also shown on this plan sheet, where “P” indicates a proposed parking space and “M” indicates a proposed metered parking space. Further study and/or input from local businesses may be needed to determine if there is the need for any posted loading zones (LZ) for loading and unloading at businesses. The current practice of loading and unloading in a travel lane would not be acceptable with only one through lane in each direction. Parking was not placed on the curve/hill which runs on Main Street from North Street east towards Glen Oak Avenue, due to safety concerns.

Using information from previous meetings and the Main Street Traffic Study performed by Hanson Engineering in 2008, additional effort was spent to continue these concepts to improve the pedestrian safety on Main Street from Sheridan Road to University Street. This portion of the Main Street corridor would be beyond the scope of the HSIP Grant, so any work would be 100% City funded. Taking the Hanson study and traffic counts into consideration, it appears that Main Street from Sheridan Road to Bourland Avenue could be restriped similar to the corridor between Sheridan Road and Glendale Avenue, as a three lane section, without major disruption of traffic service levels. This can be seen in Attachment B. As with the previous section of Main Street, the placement of loading zones must be considered in front of area businesses.

The design of the roadway striping becomes more complicated on Main Street between University Street and Bourland Avenue. This is because of the very congested nature of the intersection of University and Main and all the turning traffic at this location. Using available traffic information, four options have been generated for discussion and consideration:

Option 1: No change, see Attachment C. Currently the pedestrian safety features include: pedestrian countdown signals at Main/University intersection and “Yield to Pedestrian” signs for the right turning motorists. This option continues to provide maximum capacity for motorists in this corridor. To help calm traffic in this area in order to increase pedestrian safety, a speed reduction to 25 mph could be posted.

Option 2: Parking on south side, see Attachment C. The Hanson Study in 2008 showed that one eastbound through lane could be eliminated in this section, without a major reduction in traffic level of service. This through lane, which is on the south side of Main Street, could be converted into parking or a wider sidewalk/parkway. While this option would add some on-street parking spaces, they would not be located in a desirable location. Because of the existing, available parking for the shopping center on the south side of the roadway, it is likely that the users of these parking spaces would largely be the businesses on the north side of the street. Although some of the persons crossing to the north side of the street will utilize the pedestrian signals at University, many pedestrians will be tempted to cross mid-block—through heavy traffic. Unless there was a positive way of encouraging them to cross at the intersection, this space would be better served as a widened sidewalk/parkway area. Additionally, the persons entering and exiting parked cars in the first block of the south side will have to contend with traffic turning onto Main from University, as well as the heavy through traffic in a narrow (11’) lane. This situation will likely lead to more personal injury and property accidents in this corridor and would not be seen as a safety improvement. To further help calm traffic in this area to increase pedestrian safety, a speed reduction to 25 mph would be recommended.

Option 3: Parking on north side, see Attachment D. The attachment shows a layout of this corridor with parking and loading zones allowed on the north side of Main Street. The Hanson Study in 2008 showed that two through lanes were needed to accommodate the westbound traffic levels at this location for the traffic queuing for the University/Main intersection. The study also showed that one eastbound lane could be dropped in this area. Therefore, to provide parking on the north side, the travel lanes would have to be shifted to the south. This shift of traffic lanes to the south will cause an unacceptable offset for traffic crossing University on Main Street at this busy intersection. Additionally, because the traffic counts show that the traffic is consistently heavy at this location from 7 am to 7 pm any cars parked on the north side of the street would have to interrupt the flow of traffic, which would be on very narrow (10.5’) lanes, to enter and exit the parking spaces. Furthermore, many of these spaces may be blocked by stacked traffic waiting for a green light at University making them virtually unusable at times. This scenario will likely result in additional property and injury accidents and would not be seen as a pedestrian safety improvement. This option is not recommended.

Option 4: Provides pedestrian buffers on both sides. This scenario, seen on Attachment D, shows a painted out area on each side of the roadway that will buffer the pedestrians on the curbline sidewalk from the through traffic on Main Street. The Hanson Study showed that one eastbound through lane east of University Street could be dropped. By utilizing this lane width, an area would be painted out to prevent traffic on each side of Main Street on the block from University Street to Underhill Avenue. To minimize the offset at the University/Main intersection, the buffer would be slightly more on the south side than the north. Parking would not be allowed on the block from University Street to Underhill Avenue, but the additional distance between the pedestrians and the through traffic will give the roadway a more walkable appeal. Additionally, if this proves to be a successful means to give the pedestrians more comfort on this roadway corridor, a future CIP request could be made to curb in this painted pedestrian buffer and widen the sidewalk and/or add landscaping. Several parking spaces could be striped on the north side of Main Street between Underhill Avenue and Bourland Avenue in the area outside the transition from one to two lanes. To further help calm traffic in this area to increase pedestrian safety, a speed reduction to 25 mph would be recommended.

______________________________________

Staff Recommendations for improvement of the Main Street Corridor:

Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue (HSIP grant area):

  • Reduce roadway to a 3 lane cross section to calm traffic.
  • Restrict right turn on red for both northbound and southbound Sheridan Road traffic at Main Street.
  • Restrict left turns into and out of Crescent Avenue.
  • Install additional 30 mph speed signs.
  • Install additional chevron signs on the curve/hill near Crescent Avenue.
  • Update the painted crosswalks.
  • Mark parking areas and loading zones where appropriate.
  • Install parking meters between Crescent Avenue and Glendale Avenue.
  • Restrict parking from 2 am to 6 am to prevent overnight parking and allow for street cleaning and snow plowing.

Sheridan Road to Bourland Avenue:

  • Reduce roadway to a 3 lane cross section to calm traffic.
  • Restrict right turn on red for both northbound and southbound Sheridan Road traffic at Main Street.
  • Install additional 30 mph speed signs.
  • Update the painted crosswalks.
  • Mark parking areas and loading zones where appropriate.
  • Restrict parking from 2 am to 6 am to prevent overnight parking and allow for street cleaning and snow plowing. Find more details about professional waste and garbage cleaning services at dumposaurus.com/popular-dumpster-rental-blog-articles/.

University Street to Bourland Avenue (Option 4, pedestrian buffers on both sides):

  • Drop one eastbound through lane at University Street.
  • Stripe Main Street from University Street to Underhill Avenue with two westbound through lanes and one eastbound through lane.
  • Taper down to one eastbound lane between Underhill Avenue and Bourland Avenue.
  • Stripe out pedestrian buffers on both sides of street along the curbline, (3’ on the north side and 5’ on the south side) to minimize the traffic offset at the Main/University intersection.
  • Request administrative approval to reduce the speed limit to 25 mph.
  • Install 25 mph speed signs.
  • Update the painted crosswalks.
  • Mark parking areas and loading zones where appropriate (north side between Underhill Avenue and Bourland Avenue).
  • Restrict parking from 2 am to 6 am to prevent overnight parking and allow for street cleaning and snow plowing.
City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, Streets

Main Street: Actions speak louder than words

19 Comments

According to the Journal Star’s “Word on the Street” column, Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken “wants Main to be considered a priority again.” While I welcome efforts to move Main Street back onto the priority list, I have to wonder what is meant by “priority.” The same amount of money for Main Street improvements has been budgeted in 2010 as was budgeted in 2009: $0. Lack of funding was the reason given for moving Main off the priority list in the first place back in November 2008.

The article goes on to explain that, specifically, she’d like to see additional parking and property redevelopment along the stretch from University to Methodist. “[Additional parking is] an inexpensive thing we can do on the short term and hopefully slow the traffic down, making (exceptions) for the so-called rush hours in the morning and afternoons.” I presume she’s talking about on-street parking, given that only on-street parking would have a traffic calming effect. I agree that adding parking on Main is relatively inexpensive and easy to do (plus it would make Main more pedestrian-friendly and offer easier access to businesses). But why then was it not done last year? Why did she support the addition of off-street surface lots in the West Main form district instead?

“‘I’m trying to work with all of those property owners to the maximum extent possible to redevelop that entire block and look at some of the parking issues and some (improvements) of the facades and that sort of thing,’ Van Auken added.” Great, but facade improvement and property redevelopment are private investments, not public ones. In fact, several businesses have already improved their Main Street facades. When is the city going to do its part in improving the streetscape?

Public Works Director Dave Barber was also interviewed for the article. Notably, the paper said he “estimates it will cost $12 million” to make “a considerable impact on Main.” The figure includes the cost to “reduce the street’s lanes, landscape it and make it more pedestrian friendly.” In November 2008, the estimate for this same work was $10 million. So the estimated costs have risen 20% in 14 months. The longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes.

I appreciate the pro-revitalizing-Main-Street rhetoric, but frankly I’m tired of talk. All we’ve done is talk for seven years. Let’s see some action. Let’s see some money appropriated for it. Let’s see an RFP go out to perform the work. And don’t tell me we don’t have the money. Any city that can afford to give $39.3 million to a hotel developer (downtown Marriott), lease its prime real estate for $1 per year for 99 years (Sears block), tear up its railroad infrastructure (Kellar Branch), and turn its industrial park into a greenfield for low-wage big-box stores (Pioneer Park) obviously has money to burn.

When it comes to priorities in Peoria, actions speak much louder than words.

City of Peoria, Peoria County

Sigma Nu suit against Van Auken, Rand and Ruckriegel dismissed

32 Comments

On October 1, Associate Judge Katherine Gorman dismissed without prejudice the trespassing lawsuit brought against Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken, District 4 County Board Representative Andrew Rand, and City Historic Preservation Commissioner Sid Ruckriegel by the Sigma Nu Fraternity and Caleb Matheny.

While the ruling allows 28 days for the complaint to be refiled, attorneys representing Sigma Nu and Matheny stated Monday that they will not pursue the matter further.

“We have consulted with our clients and they have elected to not amend the complaint within the 28 day period,” Attorney Jeffrey R. Hall stated. “Since the lawsuit was filed, they met with Bradley University officials and have become satisfied with the results of that meeting. While they filed a lawsuit to speak out against the unexplained behavior and trespass of private property on the part of Ms. Van Auken, Mr. Rand, and Mr. Ruckreigel, they feel satisfied with the dialogue that resulted with University and City officials.”

When asked for her reaction to the ruling, Van Auken said, “I think the actions here speak for themselves.” Rand and Ruckriegel could not be reached for comment.

The lawsuit stemmed from an incident that occurred in the early morning hours of September 20, 2008. Van Auken was attending a dinner party when she received a call from a constituent complaining about noise coming from the Sigma Nu Fraternity, 1300 W. Fredonia Ave. At about 12:30 a.m., Van Auken, Rand, and Ruckriegel walked over to the fraternity and confronted the students. Alleging that Van Auken was drunk and trespassing, fraternity members called the Peoria Police on her. Van Auken was not ticketed, but then-president of Sigma Nu, Caleb Matheny, was given a citation for violating the city’s noise ordinance. The citation was later dismissed.

In March 2009, a little more than five months after the incident, Sigma Nu and Matheny filed suit for trespassing, and alleged that Van Auken abused her power as a council member. The suit was filed during the heart of Van Auken’s reelection campaign to the City Council. Despite the negative publicity, including the release of an embarrassing video clip of the incident, Van Auken easily won reelection. Lawyers for Sigma Nu said at the time that the lawsuit was not political, and the delay in filing was due to the city being uncooperative in providing information requested through the Freedom of Information Act.

Circuit Judge Stephen Kouri recused himself from the case; no reason was given. The case was then assigned to Associate Judge Katherine Gorman. Gorman disclosed at a September 21 hearing that she had a connection to Rand. Court documents did not specify what that connection was, but Hall stated that, “based on what she [Gorman] related in court on the record, that her husband has served on a committee of some sort with Mr. Rand in the past.” Gorman’s husband is Dr. Jim Hubler, an emergency medicine physician at OSF St. Francis Medical Center. Rand is the Executive Director of Advanced Medical Transport, the city’s ambulance provider. The hearing was continued until October 1 to allow time for the plaintiffs to confer with their clients on the matter. It appears that the connection was a non-issue, as no objection was filed.

Hall believes the outcome was a positive one for his clients: “Even though the lawsuit was dismissed, we feel the process has benefited the Gentlemen of Sigma Nu, Caleb Matheny, and all Bradley students because they finally were allowed to have a voice. And, we can confidently say that Ms. Van Auken, Mr. Rand, & Mr. Ruckriegel will not set foot on Sigma Nu’s property without first obtaining permission from this point on.”

City of Peoria, Streets

Will these projects ever become reality?

6 Comments

I had a strange sense of deja vu last night.

I attended an open house meeting Wednesday at the Gateway Building to look at plans for Washington and Adams Streets (Route 24) from I-474 to Hamilton Blvd. There were lots of artist’s renderings of how it could look in the future, with wider sidewalks, on-street parking, street trees, shorter crossing distances for pedestrians, etc. But I got the distinct feeling I’d been through this exercise before.

Oh, that’s right — I have. I remember seeing the same thing at the Sheridan Triangle open house meetings. I see a pattern emerging here. The city gets finished with the feasibility study for these projects, then they don’t appropriate money for the engineering or construction of them, so they wither on the vine.

There’s $10 million in state construction money earmarked and set aside for Peoria to use. This was money that was secured years ago to move the S-curve where Adams and Jefferson meet north of downtown. That project never materialized either, so now the money is available for another project. But no one’s tapping into it.

Instead, lack of money is cited as the problem for pushing off these projects. Improvements to Main Street were put on the back burner by second district council member Barbara Van Auken because it’s estimated to cost $10 million. And in November of last year, the council decided to delay five large capital projects — including the Sheridan Triangle redevelopment — until some time in the future when they might possibly issue bonds to pay for them. No word on when that will show up on the agenda.

Meanwhile, the council has had no problem finding money or issuing bonds to give $39.5 million to a private hotel developer. Nor have they had any trouble spending $55 million overbuilding the Peoria Civic Center. There’s plenty of money to go around for non-necessities — and taxes imposed to pay for them. And these deals get through the council lickety-split.

So the problem isn’t money. It’s priorities.

City Council, City of Peoria, Crime

City to defend Van Auken

51 Comments

The City of Peoria will be defending Council Member Barbara Van Auken against the lawsuit that was filed by the Sigma Nu fraternity against her, District 4 County Board Representative Andrew Rand, and City Historic Preservation Commissioner Sid Ruckriegel. City attorney Randy Ray confirmed late today, “We will be filing a pleading on her [Van Auken’s] behalf and defending her.”

I’m so glad my tax dollars are going toward this. I assume this means our budget crisis is over and the City is operating in the black again.

Incidentally, it looks like Rand and Ruckriegel aren’t so lucky as to have their respective municipalities pick up their legal expenses. They have reportedly retained Tim Bertschy with Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C.

2009 Campaign

Negative campaigning plays in Second District

4 Comments

Over the weekend, city council candidate Curphy Smith sent this mailer to residents in the second district. It can only be characterized as a negative campaign piece. It sets forth in detail all the ways incumbent Barbara Van Auken broke her campaign promises, with some personal attacks thrown in for good measure.

This mailer was regrettable, especially considering Smith had, up to that point, run a pretty positive campaign. While I think the piece makes some valid criticisms of Van Auken, it steps over the line a little too much. Specifically:

  • Overall, the piece reads as a response to the unsigned anti-Curphy flyer that was distributed to neighborhoods surrounding Bradley. In fact, an image of the flyer appears on page 3 of Curphy’s mailer, and Curphy attributes the flyer to Van Auken’s campaign.

    “Only one week before Election Day, Barbara Van Auken sent out an alarmist flyer urging people to vote on 7th,” the Smith mailer says. However, as I reported in a previous post, Van Auken denies any knowledge of the flyer, and says it was not authorized by her campaign. Unless Smith’s campaign has some sort of proof that it came from Van Auken, they shouldn’t be accusing her of sending it.

  • The mailer heavily criticizes Van Auken’s success in building a new arbor at Rebecca and Main street completely at city expense. While pointing out that Van Auken didn’t fulfill her promise to repeal the $6 per month garbage fee, the mailer states, “She had other ideas to spend the money to make her look good as a council member — such as her monumental and extravagant arbor.”

    Construction of the arbor was a one-time cost of $143,287.66. The garbage fee brings in approximately $2.3 million in revenue annually. Was the arbor expense extravagant? One could argue that it was. But one cannot argue that it would have been more than a drop in the bucket to fill the revenue hole if the garbage tax were eliminated. A better criticism would have been that, in 2006, the council considered replacing the garbage fee by raising the city’s portion of property taxes 14 cents per $100 valuation. They didn’t, opting instead to approve a budget that didn’t raise taxes and left the garbage tax in place. Van Auken voted in favor of that budget.

  • The mailer also makes this allegation: “People who have had to deal with Barbara Van Auken over the years invariably describe her as ‘vindictive,’ ‘mean,’ ‘divisive,’ and ‘abrasive.'” This kind of rhetoric is not helpful to voters. It’s a personal attack. It’s hyperbole (“invariably”?). And it’s unnecessary. There is sufficient reason to vote against her without resorting to name-calling. It just makes Smith appear mean-spirited. That’s unfortunate because, in my dealings with Smith, I had not found him to be mean-spirited.

In my opinion, this piece wasn’t necessary. Van Auken had brought enough bad press on herself, and the Journal Star had endorsed Smith. The unsigned anti-Curphy flyer was already counterbalanced by the release of embarrassing police reports and video of Van Auken from last September. The candidates themselves had successfully distanced themselves from these negative attacks on each other.

On the other hand, negative campaigning has a long and often successful history. I guess Smith’s campaign will just have to hope the tactic doesn’t backfire on them as voters head to the polls today.