Tag Archives: Big Al’s

City Council, City of Peoria

City buys high, sells low

10 Comments

If you ever wonder why Peoria is always broke, just take a look at how it has handled the Wonderful Development. It’s poised to give $37 million to EM Properties — $11 million of which will be used to buy a half-acre of buildings along Main Street. But that’s where the World Famous Big Al’s strip club is, so apparently we have to bend over backwards (pun intended) to find them a new place to locate.

The mayor and others constantly make a big deal out of the fact that “they didn’t choose to move; they were asked to move” — the implication being that they decided to move out of the goodness of their heart as a favor to the city. Call me cynical, but I think the $11 million might have had more to do with the decision than mere altruism. It’s one thing to be asked to move, and quite another to be paid handsomely to move.

Most people consider the eleven million taxpayer dollars to be sufficient incentive to move. But not the City. Not by a long shot. First, they changed the adult use ordinance, expanding Big Al’s “grandfather” status to the point that it can move absolutely anyplace it wants. One would think with $11 million, Big Al’s could find someplace in the City that complies with the adult use ordinance as it was, but the City felt this additional incentive was necessary.

But that wasn’t enough, either. Rather than giving Big Al’s the money and letting them find another home like the City did for the residents of Dechman when they were thrown out of their homes to make way for MidTown Plaza, the City took on itself the job of finding another location. The council and, presumably, city staff spent who knows how long looking at other potential sites on behalf of Big Al’s.

And they found one — a parking lot owned by the City of Peoria. One problem: it’s too close to a day care center. No problem! The city’s attorney invented a new definition of “property line” and read it into the code. Then they approved the site for the sale of liquor, despite having no site plan on file from the developer, which is required for any other applicant.

But last night was the coup de grace. After all this special treatment, the City did one last favor for Big Al’s. It sold this taxpayer-owned acre and a half of land at a bargain-basement price of $400,000.

Buy high, sell low. That’s the City’s approach to economic development.

City Council, City of Peoria

Observations

21 Comments

If you’re Marriott Hotels and you don’t want to see a strip club across the street from your property, the City of Peoria will work tirelessly to find a new location for the strip club. If you’re a lawyer and you don’t want a strip club on your street, the City of Peoria will work tirelessly to find a new location for the strip club. If you’re a large church and you don’t want to see a strip club down the block from your property, the City of Peoria will work tirelessly to find a new location for the strip club. If you’re a small-business owner running a daycare center and you have no political clout, but you don’t want a strip club next door to your business, the City of Peoria will say there’s no place else the strip club can locate.

The strip club owner was going to remodel the Madison Theater (which is currently in a terrible state of disrepair). By chasing them away from the Madison parking lot location, those remodeling plans are apparently scrapped, according to the Journal Star. So the council has helped scuttle plans for revitalization of an historic property. This is not particularly surprising, given the council’s demonstrated apathy toward historic preservation.

Meanwhile, the stated purpose of this move — to make way for a new hotel on the Pere Marquette block — is still missing in action. The project was approved way back in 2008, but to date the project has not begun. A change to the redevelopment agreement approved by the council on May 25, 2010, stated that the project should commence within one year. Almost nine months have passed since that agreement was signed.

All of this angst about a project that is so shaky, it can’t seem to get started despite an infusion of $37 million in taxpayer money and extraordinary help from the City in moving the strip club off the block.

City of Peoria

Does new Big Al’s location violate liquor ordinance?

36 Comments

Here’s an e-mail exchange I had recently with the City’s attorney, Randy Ray:

First e-mail to Mr. Ray

Hi Randy,

Upon reading the municipal code, Sec. 3-11, it would appear to me that Big Al’s could not get a liquor license at the proposed Jefferson Street location because it’s within 100 feet of a licensed day care facility. Is that not the case? If so, why did the Liquor Commission approve it? If not, why not?

Thanks for your help,
C. J. Summers

Response from Mr. Ray:

C.J.,
The day care center is approx. 164 feet from the property line of the proposed site. The day care lease is for specific rooms within the building. Lessee has no rights to the bus area or any other common area.
Randy

Second e-mail to Mr. Ray:

Thanks, Randy.

The ordinance states, “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.”

The CityLink bus transfer center is all one parcel, and there’s one property line around the entire site. What’s the warrant (from the city code) for defining “property line” the way you described — as only those specific rooms within the building that are being used by the daycare? Elsewhere (for instance, 28-2), the code defines “property line” as “the line marking the boundary between any street and the private property abutting thereon.” I don’t see anywhere in the code where “property line” ever refers to the boundaries of leased office space within a parcel.

Thanks for your help,
C. J. Summers

No response yet from Mr. Ray. I’ll update this post when I hear back.

2011 Election, City Council, City of Peoria

Turner defends putting strip club next to day care center

51 Comments

“If (Big Al’s) doesn’t move, these hotels don’t get built,” at-large council member Eric Turner said afterward. “They’ll be built – but they’ll be in East Peoria.

“It’s essential that we do something,” Turner continued. “We have got to find a way to make this work.”

Even if that “something” is putting a strip club right next door to a day care center for children three months to 12 years of age. Sounds like a winning campaign slogan to me:

[image removed by blog owner]

It would look great on t-shirts, too!

City Council, City of Peoria

Potential Big Al’s location fraught with problems

19 Comments

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.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Noteworthy news links

76 Comments

Here are some news items from the Journal Star that caught my interest:

City Council, City of Peoria

First steps toward Big Al’s move approved

36 Comments

As expected, the adult use ordinance change was approved by the council 8-2 (Jacob abstaining, Sandberg and Nichting voting against) and the Class A liquor licenses for 500 Main St. (former Euro Jack’s) and 414 Hamilton were approved 9-1 (Jacob abstaining, Sandberg voting against).

But what’s really interesting to me is some of the rhetoric that is reported from last night. Unfortunately, I couldn’t attend the meeting, and of course it wasn’t broadcast since it was held on a Monday this week. But according to the Journal Star, WEEK.com, and 1470 WMBD, the council members said this:

Ardis said the potential of Big Al’s moving opens up the possibility of “one of the biggest projects that could happen Downtown since the Civic Center.”

At-large Councilman Eric Turner, however, said the votes were based on an issue of what is best for Downtown Peoria, saying that it was “dying” and losing out in economic development to East Peoria.

“The issue is not about Big Al’s, but it’s about economic development,” Turner said. “We stand to lose if we don’t make changes and start looking out for the economic development future of this city.”

Ardis says the reason the public doesn’t know more about the proposed development is because the plan has not been brought before the council yet.

“Nothing is what it appears to be until it appears to be what it is. We really don’t have all the details about this project and as time passes they’ll no more about it and they’ll be more comfortable with what were proposing to do,” says Clyde Gulley Jr.

Mayor Ardis made it a point to remind citizens that Big Al’s is doing the city a huge favor by agreeing to change locations.

In other words, even though we the citizens know nothing officially about this new development, we need to change ordinances and okay liquor licenses to make it happen based on blind faith in the city council. Even though this hotel project “has not been brought before the council yet,” according to Mayor Ardis, all the council people know about it because they’ve been skirting around the Open Meetings Act by meeting with the developer two at a time. That engenders a lot of trust, doesn’t it?

It’s clear from the comments above that the justification for approving the liquor licenses and the change to the adult use ordinance was to make way for a development project that is still being kept a secret from the public. Without the hotel project connected to it, these requests never would have passed the council. Thus, I think the citizens have a right to know what this project is that is influencing the council. I mean, if this isn’t a back-room deal, I don’t know what is.

Don’t get me wrong. This hotel may indeed be a “wonderful development,” as Randy Ray described it. I’m not prejudging the project. I’m just saying that the council is not acting with transparency on public policy issues, and that’s not good governance.

One other thing that I can’t resist commenting on: Downtown Peoria is “dying,” according to Councilman Turner. Dying? You mean the original Civic Center, Civic Center expansion, Riverfront Village, ballpark, Riverplex, etc., etc., have all been abject failures? So noted.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Journal Star reveals “wonderful development”

38 Comments

Kudos to the Journal Star for ferreting out information on the “wonderful development” we keep hearing about from the city:

The proposed project would include a new hotel bearing a nationally known flag on the same block with the Hotel Pere Marquette, which would be renovated, sources said.

Sources said the project is spearheaded by local developer Gary Matthews, whose work includes multiple commercial projects in East Peoria, including the Riverside Center and GEM Terrace….

Sources said a feasibility study has been completed for the proposed project and that it was positive. They did not say, however, who did the study.

Matthews and his partners reportedly met with Peoria City Council members two at a time – to avoid having a majority of a quorum and violating the Illinois Open Meetings Act – in recent months to explain the proposal’s basics.

The project, sources said, calls for renovation of the Hotel Pere Marquette, which Matthews and his partners would acquire from current owners Innco Hospitality of Kansas City, Kan., a parking deck, a new pool and spa area.

The two hotels would be connected to the Peoria Civic Center via an elevated skywalk crossing Fulton Street, a document the newspaper obtained shows. Sacred Heart Church would be left untouched.

The hotel construction would require demolition of Big Al’s and adjoining businesses.

A new hotel in Peoria will be good for the economy and certainly good for convention business at the Civic Center. But as with anything, the devil is in the details. Some of those details that concern me are:

  • Design — What will the new hotel look like? Will it conform to the Land Development Code? Take a look at GEM Terrace in East Peoria and tell me there isn’t reason for concern here.
  • Big Al’s — Why the need to bend over backward for this business? In the past when a “wonderful opportunity” came along, the city simply took the property via eminent domain. Think Eagle’s Cleaners, or Midtown Plaza. Here, the city is helping facilitate a move to Hamilton Blvd. apparently in violation of the adult use ordinance, necessitating a change in that ordinance to make it legal. Why not take the property and let Al’s find new digs someplace that conforms to existing ordinances, like any every other business?
  • The skyway — The skyway will take pedestrians off the street. That’s what skyways are designed to do. Unfortunately, this is in direct contradiction to downtown revitalization plans (e.g., the Heart of Peoria Plan) which are designed to put more pedestrians on the street. And then there are the aesthetic issues of putting a skyway across Fulton.
  • The City’s role — What is the city’s role in all of this? What taxpayer funds, if any, will be expended? Surely there will be some — if nothing else, the connection to the Civic Center will require some modification of the Civic Center to receive the skyway traffic. Did the city pay for or help pay for the feasibility study? Since this is part of the City’s Hospitality Improvement Zone (HIZ), what incentives will this project be getting? These are things that should be discussed openly because they are public issues.
City Council, City of Peoria

Council greasing the skids for Big Al’s move

37 Comments

On the agenda for Monday’s City Council meeting is a change to the city’s adult business ordinance that would allow Big Al’s to move to a new location while keeping their “grandfathered in” status. The council communication explains:

Since approximately 1978, the City has had an adult business ordinance that restricted the locations of adult businesses by limiting their distances from other adult businesses, from churches and schools, and from residentially zoned properties. There has always been at least one adult business that has not been in compliance with the ordinance but has been grandfathered and, therefore, allowed to continue at its present location. The attached ordinance would allow such a business to relocate, obtain an adult use license for a property which brings the location more into compliance. The relocation may provide an opportunity for the City to take advantage of a significant development opportunity.

In other words, Big Al’s adult use license would follow them to a new location. They wouldn’t have to reapply. And they continue to be “grandfathered in.” Couple this with the liquor license that was requested for 414 NE Hamilton (which the Liquor Commission didn’t approve or deny), and I think you see where this is going.

Once again, oblique reference is made to “a significant development opportunity,” which is rumored to be either an expansion to the Pere Marquette or a new hotel that will be connected to the Civic Center somehow (pedestrian bridge?). In any case, the deal apparently hinges on allowing Big Al’s to move without giving up their adult use license, so the city is doing everything in its power to facilitate that.

I’m concerned that by doing this, the council will be invalidating their adult use ordinance. What I mean is, they’re changing the ordinance to benefit one business. If they do this for one adult business and not another, with no consistent or reasonable justification for such discrimination, the ordinance becomes arbitrary and capricious, and ultimately unconstitutional.

For example, in 2002, the owner of 617 W. Main St., Frank Genusa, also had a grandfathered-in business called Playmate Video. When he changed tenants to a business called The Dungeon Music and Apparel that sold the same kind of adult material, the city revoked his adult use license, saying the grandfathering no longer applies — even though it was the same landlord, the same type of business, and the same location. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that place is gone, but you see my point: the rules seem to be rigidly applied to one owner, but easily changed for another.

The next year, the strip club now known as Elliott’s started its effort to get an adult use license at its North University Street location. The city fought that by denying a Class A liquor license for the establishment (a requirement for selling liquor if the establishment also holds an adult-use license). That resulted in a lawsuit that eventually cost the taxpayers several thousand dollars, and they got their liquor license after all. Again, the rules are applied aggressively to one business, but bent and rewritten for another.

Why the double standard? This “significant development opportunity” must be a real doozy. I wonder when the public will be let in on the council’s little secret.

City of Peoria, General News

Big Al’s looking for new digs

25 Comments

According to the latest Liquor Commission agenda, Big Al’s is requesting a liquor license for 414 NE Hamilton. Rumor has it that the Pere Marquette has bought out Big Al’s current location for (pardon the pun) an obscene amount of money. So now, Big Al’s has its eye on this building:

For context, the G.A.R. Hall is two doors to the left, Enterprise car rental is next door to the right, and across the street is the Associated Bank building. I hear tell some tenants in the latter building are opposed to Big Al’s moving in across the street.