Tag Archives: Bob Manning

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Glen Oak School Neighborhood Impact Zone adopted

4 Comments

For those who think the City isn’t doing enough to support District 150 schools, take a look at the Neighborhood Impact Zone that was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan Tuesday night. This was a collaborative effort of the City, School District, neighbors surrounding Glen Oak School, and Tri-County Regional Planning, led by Third District Councilman Bob Manning and At-Large Councilman George Jacob. You can download a PDF of the zone/plan from the city’s website.

Here’s what I found most impressive: it includes measurement and follow-up. They’ve set incremental four-year goals for homeownership, crime reduction, neighborhood satisfaction, business retention, infrastructure improvement, community involvement, and education. They measured all these before the plan was adopted so they had a baseline from which to evaluate changes from year to year.

I hope that this type of planning effort is next applied to the area surrounding the new Harrison school, as it could certainly benefit from a focused effort to improve all the items on the measurement list.

Kudos to the City, which has really gone the extra mile to improve this area. Although I’m still disappointed that the school district felt it necessary to purchase (for $3.2 million) and tear down three blocks of housing stock, an historic school building, and local business structures in order to build a suburban-style mega-campus, I applaud the fact that at least they stayed centrally-located in the neighborhood and are willing to open up the campus and building as a community center.

2009 Campaign, City Council, City of Peoria

Endorsement: Beth Akeson for City Council, Third District

18 Comments

Three candidates are vying to be the Peoria City Council’s third district representative: Beth Akeson, Kelley C. McGownd-Mammen, and Timothy D. Riggenbach. There is a primary on Tuesday, February 24, to narrow the choices down to two. The Journal Star Editorial Board is correct in their endorsement of Akeson and Riggenbach for the primary.

Beth Akeson and her familyI’m going to go a step further, though, and give you my endorsement for the general election, which will be April 7. I’m endorsing Beth Akeson for the Peoria City Council’s third district seat being vacated by Bob Manning.

Motivational speaker Joel Barker once said, “Vision without action is a dream. Action without vision is simply passing the time. Action with vision is making a positive difference.” This is what sets Beth Akeson apart from the other candidates: She has that rare combination of action with vision. And she will make a positive difference for the citizens of Peoria, especially in the third district.

Vision

First, Beth has a specific vision for the future of Peoria. It’s a vision that’s shared by many because it was shaped from lots of public input. The Heart of Peoria Plan was formed through a public process that included hundreds of participants: residents, business owners, city staff, and other stakeholders. Unfortunately, many candidates and even council members have not read the Heart of Peoria Plan or taken the time to really understand the vision that Peoria’s residents have developed. The result has been a lot of action without vision.

Beth Akeson has gone beyond simply reading the Heart of Peoria Plan. She has done extensive study on urban design. An understanding of how cities work gives her a strong foundation from which to make decisions. It allows her to see how the little decisions made today will impact the future of the city. It allows her to see through expensive, ineffective “magic-bullet” theories for city revitalization and focus on long-term, time-tested methods of urban planning that will lead to real revitalization.

An important part of Beth’s vision is the principle of inclusion and consensus-building. The reason why the Heart of Peoria Plan has wide support is because of the process that was used to develop it. It was an inclusive process. All the stakeholders had a seat at the table from the beginning. Every participant’s concerns were heard and taken into consideration. The final plan was worked out through consensus-building among these stakeholders.

Beth’s vision for representing the third district is the same. She believes in giving residents a seat at the table early in the decision-making process so their concerns can be heard and have an impact on the final outcome. Most projects in the city are presented for public input too late in the process to make any difference at all (for example, the recent downtown hotel project). Beth would work to change this culture of exclusion to a culture of inclusion.

Action

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Beth from working with her on the Heart of Peoria Commission, it’s that she works hard. She took her appointment seriously and did a tremendous amount of research on the issues that came before the commission. She made phone calls, visited sites, sought out expert advice, talked to people who lived in affected areas, and more importantly, listened. Beth is a good listener; she seeks first to understand, then to be understood. I can tell you that I’ve personally witnessed this time and again — with city staff, business owners, residents, and other commissioners (including myself). She will bring this same level of commitment to her role as a city council member.

The Chairman of the Heart of Peoria Commission, the late Bill Washkuhn, recognized Beth’s hard work on behalf of the commission. He encouraged Beth to take her efforts to the next level. In an e-mail he wrote just this past December, he said, “Beth, continue to direct your energies toward the betterment of Peoria. Run for City Council.”

I lived in the third district for eleven years, from 1994 to 2005. It’s a diverse district with very diverse needs. I sincerely believe that Beth Akeson is the candidate that will make the biggest positive difference for her district and the city at large. I hope you’ll vote for her.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

LDC continues to go unenforced by Council

15 Comments

Tuesday night, the Peoria City Council decided twice not to enforce the Land Development Code (LDC). They made decisions that weren’t just minor variations to the LDC, but decisions that were a fundamental affront to the very intent of the LDC. In fact, they showed an ignorance of and contempt for the intent of the LDC. They have evidently never read the LDC nor the Heart of Peoria Plan on which it was based.

The two items on the Council’s agenda were:

  • New Taco Bell. The Taco Bell restaurant at 1811 N. Knoxville is going to be rebuilt. The developer is going to tear down the building and put up a new one. This would be the perfect opportunity to bring the property into compliance with the code. Yet Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken moved to approve the developer’s request to comply with none of the LDC — to be completely non-conforming. Why? Because he’s reportedly spending $1.8 million and because she thinks there are “problems” with the LDC. That latter reason is the latest rage, don’t you know. Just declare something “broken” or “a problem” (like the Historic Preservation Ordinance, for instance) and then you can completely disregard it until it’s “fixed.” What does Van Auken think is wrong with the code? Wait till you hear.

    The code calls for buildings to be built close to the street — preferably right up to the sidewalk — so that they’re more pedestrian friendly and so that they’re pushed further away from the residential neighborhoods that are behind the businesses, among other reasons. When the code was enacted, buildings that didn’t conform to the code (like Taco Bell) were grandfathered in. They could even make minor additions and renovations without having to bring the building into compliance in an attempt to be “business friendly.” But if they were to make major renovations — like tearing down and reconstructing the building — then they would have to bring it into compliance. Makes sense, right? They’re rebuilding the thing anyway, why not build it in compliance with the code? No doubt the code would have been roundly criticized if it required a building to be torn down and rebuilt (i.e., brought into compliance) whenever the owner wanted to make any minor change.

    Yet Barbara Van Auken turned that reasoning on its head Tuesday night. She said the code was unfair to require major renovations to trigger full compliance, but not minor renovations. It rewards those who slap up shoddy additions, but penalizes those who want to invest $1.8 million to put up a “state-of-the-art Taco Bell,” she explained. That wasn’t her intent when she voted to enact the LDC, she said.

    Thus, she voted to approve a brand new building construction that completely defies the LDC, not just in siting, but also the buffering from the neighborhood. Under the LDC, a masonry garden wall would have been required as a buffer. The Council said a repaired wooden fence was sufficient.

  • Expanded pet clinic. Demanes Animal Hospital at the corner of Wisconsin and Forrest Hill has bought up four properties around it and wants to expand. They’re not tearing down their building, but instead adding on to it. However, they want to site the addition in such a way that it doesn’t conform with its current zoning, called CN (neighborhood commercial). The CN district requires that the building addition come right up to the sidewalk and that parking be put in the rear of the building. Where the existing building does not front the sidewalk, a street wall that can be as short as 3 feet tall would need to be built to establish the street edge and provide buffering.

    Instead of asking for a variance from these requirements, the decision was made to do a complete end-run around the requirements by asking for the property to be rezoned CG (general commercial). There is no legal justification for rezoning this property CG, as I outlined in my letter to the Zoning Commission, which I forwarded to Third District Councilman Bob Manning as well.

    You see, when you ask for a zoning change, the Zoning Commission and Council need to consider that request apart from the current use or current plans. Why? Because once the zoning is changed, it applies not just to the current owner, but any future owners. If Mr. Demanes were to decide to move his practice, or if (God-forbid) he got hit by a bus and the clinic needed to close, the next property owner could use that property for any permitted use under CG zoning, which includes such neighborhood-friendly uses as a pawn shop, oil and lube shop, and car wash. The zoning designation requested is the most intense land use designation available under the LDC. This is clearly inappropriate in a densely-populated residential neighborhood. It’s also completely contrary to the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

    But the appropriateness of the zoning proper was never discussed. Instead, Mr. Manning tore a page form Ms. Van Auken’s playbook and criticized the CN requirements, saying they weren’t appropriate for this part of his district. They may be okay for Main Street (in the second district), but they’re not “one size fits all,” he said. So the Council decided to continue a pattern of development that has proven over the past 50 years to deteriorate the third district. The Council decided to continue a pattern of development that the citizens found so undesirable that they wanted to change the zoning code. The Council decided to continue a pattern of development that has been proven to destabilize neighborhoods, not revitalize them.

The Council decided to repudiate the Land Development Code. They apparently think change will come by doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. These aren’t isolated incidents, nor are they minor variances. Beginning with St. Ann’s right after the LDC was adopted, right up to the actions Tuesday night, the Council has consistently undercut the Land Development Code at every turn.

The Heart of Peoria Plan was adopted “in principle” in 2002, but it has yet to be adopted in practice, despite having been codified in the LDC.

Museum Block

Bob Manning takes on his critics

3 Comments

Bob Manning dared to criticize the proposed museum project last month when the council was asked to amend the museum’s redevelopment agreement for the third time. Since then, he’s been pummeled in the Forum section of the Journal Star by the likes of Jim Maloof and Jim Baldwin. Manning wrote his own letter to the editor, mostly responding to Baldwin’s letter, but shooting back at his critics in general with this paragraph:

Let this be a warning to anyone who considers running for the Peoria City Council. If you disagree with the agenda of the “self-anointed” leaders in this community, they will come after you with personal attacks. They will not debate the issues on substance. Rather, you will be criticized for standing in the way of “progress” (read “their pet projects”).

After writing this blog for three and a half years, I can understand Bob’s frustration. No matter how much you try to speak to the issues, it seems that there’s always someone on the other side of the argument that takes your comments personally, and responds with a personal attack on your character. I guess if you can’t win the argument on substance, then the argument of last resort is the ad hominem attack.

When those attacks happen as publicly and with as much vitriol as the recent forum letters from community “leaders” against Mr. Manning, they backfire. After Maloof’s letter was published, there was not one comment in the Journal Star’s comments section in favor of Mr. Maloof’s point of view. Ditto with Mr. Baldwin’s letter. Instead, there has been an outpouring of support for Manning, including letters to the editor defending him, and thanking him for speaking out.

If this museum project is as wonderful as its boosters say it is, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny on its own merits. If it can’t, then no amount of personal attacks are going to save it.

2009 Campaign, City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

Beth Akeson to run for Third District council seat

77 Comments

I just received this e-mail from the vice-chairman of the Heart of Peoria Commission, Beth Akeson:

I have gathered the required signatures and completed the necessary paperwork to run for Peoria’s third district council seat.

These documents will be turned in tomorrow, December 15, 2008. I look forward to a positive campaign as I champion Peoria’s older neighborhoods, advocate for doing the right thing, for the right reason, in the right way.

In other correspondence, she also says she will be “an advocate for proactive policy.” Beth has served on the Heart of Peoria Commission since its inception in 2004, having been appointed by former Mayor Dave Ransburg. She ran unsuccessfully for a Peoria Board of Education seat in 2007. Beth has also contributed several guest editorials here at the Peoria Chronicle.

Current third district councilman Bob Manning recently announced he is not running for reelection. The only other candidate to formally announce a run for Manning’s seat is Peoria County Board member Tim Riggenbach. Candidates have until 5 p.m. Monday to file petitions, so more candidates may come forward.

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Manning pulls no punches with museum

20 Comments

The political pressure is off of Bob Manning, Third District Councilman. Since he’s not running for reelection, he can tell us how he really feels, and he pulls no punches in doing so. Take a listen to his comments about extending the redevelopment agreement for the old Sears block. This is the third time the museum folks have asked for the deadlines to be extended:

[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/Manning-12092008_64K.mp3]

After Manning’s speech, several other council members spoke to the issue, then voted 9-1 to approve the deadline extension until June 2009. Manning was the lone dissenting vote; Turner abstained, and Sandberg was absent from the meeting.

Kudos to Bob for his incisive analysis, which just happens to be exactly what I’ve been saying about the museum project for some time now. 🙂

City Council, City of Peoria

Secrecy the order of the day at City Hall

15 Comments

The City of Peoria’s liquor commission can’t even get information on what’s happening with Big Al’s plans to move, resulting in a “no decision” Monday on whether to grant them a liquor license. Via 1470 WMBD radio:

[A] NO recommendation was forwarded to the City Council concerning a change in liquor class for the former EuroJacks and an application for a liquor license at 414 Hamilton Boulevard by the owner’s of Big Al’s. The Commission cited the owners could not produce enough information at this time on specific plans for the properties.

But apparently some city officials know what’s going on, as evidenced by these quotes from a recent Journal Star article:

“They are basically moving to make way for what could be a wonderful development,” city attorney Randy Ray said, declining to discuss specifics. “At this point, it’s just a tremendous opportunity to develop the Downtown.”

Added 1st District City Councilman Clyde Gulley Jr., who represents the Downtown, “we need to move (Big Al’s) because of another project.”

Others involved at City Hall and Zuccarini remained tight-lipped about what they have planned.

The city attorney, first district councilman, and unspecified “others involved at City Hall” all know what this “tremendous opportunity” and “wonderful development” is all about. The rest of us, however, will just have to wait to find out — probably until after it’s a done deal.

Secrecy fever has found its way into the budget process as well. At a special City Council meeting Monday night, it was announced that staff had cut the budget deficit from $2.2 million to half a million dollars. When Councilman Gary Sandberg asked how they accomplished that, he was told he’d have to come in tomorrow and talk to interim City Manager Holling in private to find out. In other words, they weren’t going to divulge that information on the council floor where citizens might hear.

Of course, the sad truth is that most citizens wouldn’t have heard since the meeting was on a Monday when there’s no radio or television coverage like on Tuesday nights. Interestingly, some council members (Van Auken, Manning, Nichting, Mayor Ardis) seemed to know what was going on, while the rest of the council was in the dark about this budgeting miracle.

And it was only a few months ago that the Journal Star reported, “City officials decided in June that this year, the budget process would be more open to the public, transparent, and easily communicated between city staff members and the council.” So much for that plan.