Tag Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria, Waste Management

Talking trash

33 Comments

The city’s solid waste removal contract with waste removal solutions for households expires at the end of this year. This contract has been in place since about 1992. Now, if you’re just an average person, you might think that the city had plenty of time to start the process of rebidding this contract. After all, they knew when it was due to expire, and they know how long it takes to negotiate contracts such as these, so logically they should have been able to work backwards from the deadline to determine a time line for the rebidding process.

But they didn’t do that. No, here it is June 2009, six months before the end of the contract, and they’re just starting the year-long process. Naturally, they are requesting an extension to the existing contract that has been in place for 17 years already to allow them extra time to negotiate a new contract. That request was on last week’s (June 23) agenda, but was deferred for a month.

Meanwhile, they managed to engage a consultant to get some advice on rebidding the contract. I don’t know exactly how city departments are allowed to spend their budget, but it seems to me that every other consultant that has been hired by the city had to be approved by the council; this consultant contract never came before the council. However, it must be no big deal because the council didn’t seem to care.

The consultant made a bunch of recommendations on how the city can lower the cost of waste removal. Of course, all those suggestions mean worse service for residents. For instance, they’re recommending that everyone be provided a 90-gallon tote, and that all other garbage containers be outlawed. You wouldn’t be able to buy your own tote, of course — you’d have to essentially rent it from the disposal company. And they want to do away with alley collection of garbage, even though that’s one of the reasons alleys exist, and many older neighborhoods were designed for garbage collection from the alleys, not from the curb.

To their credit, the city council has so far been pretty adamant about keeping the alley collection of garbage, but city staff is trying to convince them to change their minds. They want to big the contract with all-curbside pickup as an option so the council can see how must more expensive it is to include alley collection. There’s only one reason for splitting out these costs: to try to persuade change. One wonders why it’s more expensive to run a truck down an alley rather than a parallel street 130 feet away. Waste Management says their trucks are too big for our alleys (solution: use smaller trucks). City staff says the heavy trucks damage the alley surfaces (question: wouldn’t moving the trucks to the streets just move the damage to the streets as well? Or is this an admission that alleys are poorly maintained in the city?).

The consultant is also suggesting that the city limit or do away with picking up anything that doesn’t fit inside one of the recommended 90-gallon totes. So, whereas now you can throw away that old couch or cabinet (what they call “bulky waste”) — the consultant says that should stop, be reduced to just once or twice a year, or charged an extra fee, such as $10 or $15 per item.

The biggest issue, however, is going to be how to include universal recycling. There is a lot of popular support for alleyside/curbside recycling as part of the base contract. Currently, anyone who wants to recycle has to pay extra and are billed directly by the hauler. That means that a household like mine that recycles pays three times for garbage service: once on our property taxes, once on our water bill, and once directly to Waste Management. Most households are not willing to pay three times for garbage hauling, so they just throw all their recyclables away in the regular trash. In other words, our current system incentivizes people not to recycle. That needs to be changed.

However, that will cost more money. So the question becomes how to pay for such service. One idea is to do the opposite of what we’re doing now: make recycling pickup free, but charge a fee for regular garbage. The way they do this in Morton is by selling trash stickers. However, in a more urban area, there is concern that this might lead to more illegal dumping or other unsanitary conditions as some people attempt to avoid the fee. So another idea is to make all collections every-other week. Regular garbage would be picked up on odd weeks, and recycling would be picked up on even weeks, for instance.

One other change that has been recommended in order to save money is switching to a sticker system for yard waste. Right now, unlimited yard waste disposal is included in the base contract. The cost of that service could be offset or possibly covered completely by charging residents a fee per bag of yard waste. On the other hand, this would be yet another reduction in services city residents already enjoy and for which they already pay twice.

Who would have thought garbage could be so complicated?

City Council, City of Peoria

How would you plug the city’s deficit?

40 Comments

The Journal Star is reporting that taxes and/or fees will have to be raised to plug the deficit, according to Mayor Ardis:

Ardis didn’t say which revenue will be increased, other than to say it could be a combination of things, such as a possible sales tax increase or a water utility fee…. The mayor did say it was unlikely the city’s portion of the property tax will be increased, citing other government bodies such as District 150 that have already increased their tax rate. “It would be the absolute last thing we’ll look at,” Ardis said. “(The property tax) is tapped.”

Wait a minute. The reason we can’t raise the property tax is because other taxing bodies have “already increased their tax rate”? That makes absolutely no sense, but let’s just accept it for the sake of argument. Why then should we consider raising the sales tax, considering the county just raised their tax rate? Why doesn’t the same “logic” apply?

And if the city’s revenue-producing abilities are limited because other taxing bodies are raising their rates, then the first thing we need to do is stop giving any of our revenue to those other taxing bodies. For instance, the city should immediately stop giving any tax money to the park district or the school district. Does that mean that there will be no programming on the riverfront? Tough! Does that mean that district 150 won’t get city-provided crossing guards? Sorry! The city needs to use all its available revenue to provide its own core services, not services for other taxing bodies.

Frankly, the mayor’s comments should come as no surprise. A couple council meetings ago, council members were given a packet of information available for download from the city’s website about the budget. Included was this document outlining possible cuts and revenue increases. In fact, since we have that info, here’s what I’d like to do:

I’d like you to pretend you’re a city council member. (You should be feeling a power trip right about now; if you don’t, you’re not pretending right.) Okay, council person? Now, you have to plug a $10 million structural budget deficit by either cutting costs, increasing revenues, or a combination of both.

How would you do it?

You can use the options provided in the aforementioned report, or add your own. It has to be realistic (so, for example, “print money out of thin air like the Federal Reserve” is not acceptable). Also, it has to be a long-term solution because this is a structural deficit. Short-term stop-gap measures don’t count.

Just to make things easier, here’s a summary of options outlined in the report:

INCOME OPTIONS

  • Property Tax — Each $.01 added to the levy raises $200,000. The owner of a $200,000 house would pay $6.60 more in property taxes annually per penny.
  • Water Utility Tax or Franchise Fee — A 5% utility tax or franchise fee placed on the use of water would yield approximately $1,200,000 each year.
  • Sales Tax — An additional .25% increase in the home rule sales tax would bring in an estimated $3,850,000 each year.
  • Package Liquor Tax — 2% tax on package liquor would raise about $700,000 annually.
  • Parking Tickets — If the $10 fine was raised to $15, an additional $90,000 in revenue annually.
  • Garbage Fee — Peoria residential properties pay $6 each month in garbage fees. For every dollar the monthly rate is raised, the City would gain an additional $336,000 annually.
  • Motor Fuel Tax — The City currently collects $.02 per gallon of fuel sold. For every penny added, approximately an additional $400,000 in revenue.
  • Stormwater Utility Fee — Rough estimates indicate charging $2.00 per month per “residential unit” would generate about $1.2 million.

COST-CUTTING OPTIONS

  • Wage Adjustment — Cutting the salary increases of staff from 4.75% (union) and 3.5% (management) to 2.5% across the board would save $1,839,113.64. Cutting them to 1% would save $3,088,880.53.
  • Voluntary Separation Initiative — No amount given, but the idea would be to offer early retirement to long-time employees who make high salaries, thus reducing the total payroll.
  • Service Cuts/Layoffs — Again, no amount given, since it would depend on which services the city decided to cut. What services do you think should be eliminated? We may be able to find out how much such a cut would save.
  • Medical Premium Increase — If the rate at which employees participated in the base premium cost were raised by 5% for all types of coverage, the City would save an estimated $811,000 in FY2010, based on 2009 premium costs. A family membership in the PPO would cost the employee $408.92 each month vs. the current rate of $272.61.
  • Reduce Capital Budget — For FY2009, Council approved a Community Investment Plan that funded $21,434,873 worth of projects. Of that amount, only $8,908,895 was in discretionary spending (funding sources not strictly limited to capital projects). This amount represented only 55% of the project funding ($17M) identified by staff and Council.
  • Use of HRA Taxes — The primary and obligated use of the proceeds of the Hotel-Restaurant-Amusement Tax is to pay down the Civic Center bonds. Annually, any revenue remaining after bond payments is apportioned by agreement to the Civic Center Authority, Peoria Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, ArtsPartners and other community organizations. Many communities use their HRA taxes to support operating or capital projects.

Okay, you have the raw data. Now find $10 million. On your marks. Get set. Go!

City of Peoria

Holiday Inn City Centre seeks to become Crowne Plaza, asks for $8 million from city

12 Comments
Crowne-Plaza-rendering

“Peoria Hotel Associates LLC is seeking partnership with the city of Peoria in a redevelopment plan for the revitalization and upgrade of the Holiday Inn City Centre.” So states a memo addressed to the Mayor and City Council members. The content of the proposal is very similar to the Marriott Hotel deal the council approved in December 2008, albeit on a smaller scale.

The redevelopment plan calls for the current Holiday Inn City Centre property to be “brought into the 21st century through a complete and comprehensive rehabilitation and renovation plan,” which would include upgrading the exterior, redeveloping the lobby and commercial space, changing 66 rooms into 35-40 suites, replacing Bennigan’s with an “upscale branded restaurant,” and changing the hotel from the Holiday Inn brand to either Crowne Plaza or Doubletree Suites.

The cost of the upgrade would be $10 million. The current owners of Peoria Hotel Associates LLC (d/b/a Holiday Inn City Centre) is Iowa-based Kinseth Hospitality Companies. According to the memo, they’ve already “maximized financing available through conventional bank lenders with a current loan in placee of $11,750,000.” So, they’re proposing this redevelopment “with the intent to participate in a city bond program similar to the redevelopment package that the current Pere Marquette Hotel is utilizing.”

We are requesting $8 million of financing similar to the Pere Marquette financing program with the goal of signing a redevelopment agreement very similar to the Pere Marquette/Marriott hotel redevelopment agreement. This will be coupled with a $10 mil New Market Tax Credit (netting $2 mil in cash). Listed below is a capital budget for our redevelopment process. We believe that the bonds will be paid through substantial sources of additional tax revenues that the city will achieve, including TIF, BDD taxes, BDD sales taxes, as well as substantial new taxes on the increases in revenues that we expect to achieve.

Cost Summary:

Exterior Upgrade $2,500,000
Lobby/Commercial Facilities $3,500,000
Restaurant & Bar re-concepting $1,000,000
Suites Conversion $1,000,000
Infrastructure/Systems $1,000,000
Meeting Rooms Upgrade $500,000
Brand Conversion $500,000
Total $10,000,000

You can read the entire memo and accompanying report here (warning: it’s a 7 MB PDF file):
PDF Link Kinseth Hospitality Memo and Report

It’s not surprising to me that they would ask for a similar deal to the Pere Marquette/Marriott. And I fully expect the council to approve it whenever it comes to the floor for a vote. Once you open that door, everyone wants to come in and get their share of the money. It’s only a matter of time before a similar request from the Mark Twain appears.

It’s also not surprising that they want to dump Bennigan’s. The restaurant chain filed for bankruptcy last July, and Kinseth Hospitality recently filed a lawsuit against the franchise’s parent company for damages allegedly resulting from that bankruptcy.

Cafe-Exterior-rendering

UPDATE: The Journal Star now has the story you read here first, and they’ve interviewed a few council members. Funny, it’s one-fifth the cost of The Wonderful Development, yet the council members interviewed aren’t too keen on this new project. They cite concerns such as the amount of debt it involves and whether there’s enough market for that many upscale hotel rooms. Huh. I thought a project like this “pays for itself.” That’s what they said about the nearly $40 million bond for the Marriott. And as I recall, there were questions about the optimistic occupancy rates predicted in the Marriott project. Yet the council had no problem approving that project with next to no deliberation. I’m sure there’s a logical explanation.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Dismantling the LDC one piece at a time

26 Comments

The deconstruction of the Land Development Code continued at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. Now the City is going to allow “separate, accessory parking lots in the West Main Street, Local Frontage category.” Because nothing says “pedestrian-friendly” and “urban” like large surface parking lots . . . or so City administrators in the Planning and Growth Department think. They defended the amendment by saying surface parking lots fulfill the intent of the code:

Administration of the LDC found that prohibiting separate, accessory parking lots is not consistent with the intent of the Land Development Code as stated in section 1.5:

  1. Create a “park-once” environment.
  2. Promote reuse, redevelopment and infill.
  3. Encourage mixed-use neighborhood main streets.

You read that right: the City is arguing that big surface parking lots are consistent with the Land Development Code, which is based on the Heart of Peoria Plan, which is based on New Urbanist principles. Somehow, I don’t think that tearing down single-family residential houses in order to construct large surface lots is the kind of “redevelopment and infill” the authors of the LDC had in mind. In fact, it goes directly against other intent statements in section 1.5, such as:

  • Encourage and assist in the preservation of existing buildings and housing stock.
  • Use the scale and massing of buildings to transition between the corridors and surrounding neighborhoods.
  • Use the commercial corridors as a seam sewing neighborhoods together rather than a wall keeping them apart

But the change was approved in a rare 7-3 vote, with Sandberg, Jacob, and Gulley voting against it. Not so rare was the fact that only two council members spoke to the issue — Van Auken in favor, Sandberg against — before it was approved. The LDC will not be repealed all at once. It will simply be pecked away little by little until it looks no different than the old Euclidean zoning it replaced.

Caterpillar, City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

What happened to Peoria’s stimulus package? Also, will Ardis be drinking the Kool-Aid this time?

32 Comments

Well, it certainly is heartwarming to hear that $3 million in additional donations have rolled in for the proposed downtown museum, but it got me wondering… remember all the talk about this project putting people to work during the recession? Who was it that said that? Oh, yeah, Michael Bryant in InterBusiness Issues:

The message to “Build the Block” as our own stimulus package should be viewed very positively. We would be taking control of our destiny and using our talents and resources to help each other, not waiting for a helping hand. While Peoria may get some monies from President Obama’s economic stimulus package, it would be a mistake for us to wait and see what monies we may get while we have our own outstanding stimulus package right in front of us, literally “shovel-ready.”

Except that they’re not going to start shoveling until at least next year. But according to a new report by Bradley professors Scott and Lewer (you remember them), “the recession will end sometime during the second half of this year.”

So much for helping us stimulate the economy or helping our residents through tough times. Sounds like the economy is correcting itself just fine without turning a spade of dirt for the proposed museum. Who’da thunk? Why, I bet once the recession is over, there would even be a market for the land that’s been held hostage by the museum for the past 11 years.

It’s not too late to correct past mistakes. The current redevelopment agreement for the old Sears block is set to expire at the end of June and must be renegotiated. Now would be the time for the city to require a larger portion of the block be opened up to private, mixed-use development. That would allow the museum to still locate on the block, but in a different form, and it would allow a larger portion of the land to produce property and sales tax income for the city — something we desperately need.

It would not be unprecedented, you know. After voters overwhelmingly supported the library referendum, the city decided to scale back their plans, issuing only $28 million for expansion/updating instead of the $35 million voters approved. I believe the phrase at that time was that the mayor wasn’t “drinking the Kool-Aid on the 72%” of voters who approved the referendum. In fact, Ardis said, taking into account the low voter turnout, that really meant that only 15% of all registered voters voted in favor, and the council has a responsibility to look at the bigger picture and represent all residents whether they voted or not. Well, guess what percentage of registered voters voted in favor of the museum? 12.29% (15,327 of 124,730). So, it only stands to reason that the city would take the same cost-saving measures with this project that they did with the library project, right? After all, times are even more dire now than when the library referendum passed; now we’re staring in the face of a $10 million deficit. Will the mayor be representing all residents whether they voted or not this time?

Of course, the city won’t actually do what I’m suggesting. They’ll pass up (for the fifth time now on this project alone) an opportunity to save money for taxpayers and increase revenues to the city, and instead look for more regressive ways to plug the budget deficit, like cutting public works and public safety, and raising garbage fees.

City of Peoria, Traffic

What makes one speed limit more “enforceable” than another?

29 Comments

From the Journal Star:

Nick Stoffer, a traffic design engineer, told members of the traffic commission that the Federal Highway Administration informed the Public Works Department that a blanket 25 mph speed limit “was not enforceable” and should be avoided. Stoffer said the state’s Department of Transportation echoed the administration’s thoughts.

Huh? Why is a blanket 25 mph residential speed limit “not enforceable,” but a 30 mph speed limit is? Wouldn’t one be just as enforceable as the other? Further confusing matters is this:

Instead, city officials will consider requests from neighborhood groups, district council members and others who want their residential streets or subdivisions to have a lowered speed limit.

So, if every neighborhood in Peoria requests a 25 mph speed limit, the city can do it. Apparently under that scenario, it’s enforceable. So what’s the difference between that and changing all the residential speed limits at once?

One more question: Why does the Federal Highway Administration have anything to say about speed limits on residential city streets?

City of Peoria

City anticipates $10 million budget deficit

24 Comments

From the City of Peoria’s “Issues Update”:

At the present time, with no changes, the City is projecting a potential budget deficit for 2010 of $10,046,499. This budget is based on re-forecasted revenues and expense increases based on historical patterns. Those increases include:

  • 4.75% wage increases for represented employees;
  • 3.5% wage increases for management-class employees;
  • 1.5% increase in supply costs;
  • 2.5% increase in contractual costs; and,
  • 10% increase in the cost of healthcare.

The potential budget deficit represents a significant, yet fully-realized, challenge as the process for addressing the gap begins. While anticipated improvements in the economy may lessen the impact, the reality is that the City has an underlying structural issue of the rate of expense increases outpacing the rate revenue increases.

Given the size of the deficit, the City is not waiting until the Fall to begin its budget process. A team of senior staff leaders, including the Police, Fire and Public Works Departments, has continued the year-round work of identifying potential solutions. That team will be joined by three members of the City Council, to be appointed by the Mayor, who will collaborate with staff to craft a joint Council-Administration plan. Initial direction from the full Council will be solicited at the June 9, 2009 regular meeting, and opportunities for public participation and input are being organized. The City Manager is also meeting with representatives of the City’s employee unions next week.

The budget issues are serious. However, recent experiences in addressing 2009 budget issues prove that a well-designed process, open communication, creativity and teamwork will produce a similar positive result.

Here’s the detailed report from Finance Director Jim Scroggins:
PDF Link Prelimnary 2010-2013 Budget

Mayor Ardis was quoted by the Journal Star as saying, “The first answer the council comes up with will not be to raise taxes. In light of what is going on at (District 150) and other taxing bodies coming out and raising taxes significantly, that’s not what we’re going to do. There will be some type of revenue enhancements and most likely service cuts while the economy stays like this. Everything will be on the table for discussion.”

Everything will be on the table? I doubt it. I’ll bet privatizing the city’s parking decks won’t be on the table. Nor will changing the redevelopment agreement with the museum group to put more of the Sears block back on the tax rolls. Nor will selling the Kellar Branch to Pioneer Railcorp, which would give the city three-quarters of a million dollars immediately. Nor is raising taxes to cover essential services being given serious consideration even though the mayor (and nearly every other city and county leader) supported raising taxes for the aforementioned non-essential museum.

I also find it interesting that the budget cuts this year are described in the Issues Update as a “positive result,” even though seal-coating of roads was cut by 50%, and code enforcement and police suffered cuts as well. The fire department is fearful that they’ll be the next department to be hit. While these departments are facing cuts, the Civic Center just completed a $55 million expansion, the city has committed to give $40 million to a private hotel developer, and the county has just committed $40 million to the proposed downtown museum.

Peoria has millions for bread and circuses, while basic services suffer.

City of Peoria, Economic Development, Peoria Public Schools

Main Street Commons (UPDATED)

32 Comments

I was given an artist’s rendering of the “Main Street Commons” project being proposed by Devonshire Group. This is the project that can supposedly only happen if District 150 gives the developers their share of the property taxes for five years. It is proposed to be built at the corner of Main and Bourland. Here’s what that corner looks like now:

main-and-bourland

That’s a vacant Walgreen’s and a parking lot. If you were to turn the camera to the right, you’d see McDonald’s. Here’s what Devonshire Group is proposing to put there instead:

main-street-commons

Sorry about the quality of the picture; all I have is a photocopy. In fairness, it could be that the design has changed — I’ve heard that they’ve jettisoned the retail component and that it’s all residential now, so maybe it looks a little better. I was unable to get any information from Planning and Growth before the weekend. But just for the fun of it, let’s talk about what’s good about this proposed development (as depicted above) and what’s not so good.

The Good

  • It’s built right up to the sidewalk. That’s good. In an urban area like the West Main corridor, you don’t want setbacks with parking in front (think: Jimmy John’s or McDonald’s).
  • It has good vertical mass. It’s not a one-story building (think: Jimmy John’s or McDonald’s again). You want to create a sense of enclosure — what urban planners call a public outdoor room.
  • It has lots of windows. Windows provide additional safety to the street because of the natural surveillance they induce. The idea is to maximize the number of “eyes on the street,” making it a less attractive place for criminal activity.

The Not-So-Good

  • There are no entry doors on Main or Bourland. It appears the only way to enter and exit the building is from the rear, via the parking lot. This is bad for a few reasons. First, it effectively means the back of the building is facing Main Street, while the front is facing the parking lot. This is not the way to re-energize Main Street. Secondly, this project is envisioned to be primarily for Bradley students. Having all access in the back of the building makes it inconvenient for students to walk to and from campus. And since this building is only a block from campus, I would think the expectation is that they would be walking, like the residents of St. James Apartments do. Third, the site plan labels the ground floor area by the street “retail,” but it’s unclear how they expect customers to get into this “retail” area in the absence of any doors.
  • The street-level facade has all the charm of a mini-storage facility. Seriously. Imagine yourself walking by this development. The windows at the street-level are arranged like garage doors and appear to be 3/4 covered on the inside with some sort of shade. So now they become the equivalent of walking by a blank wall. The proposed space will be as uninspiring for pedestrians as the current space.

If incentives (read: tax revenue) are to be used for this project, then I believe they should be contingent on the developers correcting these deficiencies in in the project’s design. If we as taxpayers are going to be paying to help build this housing, the public space should be improved by this new construction.

As for District 150’s involvement, I think it would be rather risky. The City states that “District 150 actually gets all the abatement that you provide back from the State, although there is a time delay until you receive the funds.” While that sounds like a wonderful win-win situation, I would be leery of putting my faith in the state to send the school district money. Just this past March 11, the Journal Star reported:

[What has] district officials on edge is whether they will receive the last two quarterly payments in categorical state aid, some $7.6 million. [Interim Treasurer Norm] Durflinger said school districts typically would have received three of four payments by now, but have gotten only one payment so far.

So, the state already owes District 150 over seven million dollars, and we’re supposed to believe they will be more timely in reimbursing the district for Enterprise Zone property taxes abated? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

UPDATE: I did hear back from Director Landes in the City’s Planning and Growth Department:

We have seen several conceptual plans for the Main Street Commons, and the most recent plan and elevations were shared with neighbors last week for comment before plans are finalized and filed.

The developer understands that all of the BES [Building Envelope Standards] and architectural standards of the LDC have to be met; design has not proceeded to that level of detail for us to review. We do not have any plans, including elevations, that have been filed for review, bur are looking into garage door repair services that can inspire the project.

Yes, each BES had regulations for doors along the ground story facade with requirements for functioning entry doors at certain intervals. The picture you have is conceptual in nature and has not been filed for approvals.


City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

2009 Worst Timing Award: Craig Hullinger

39 Comments

I like Craig, so nothing against him personally. But has he read the paper lately? I have a hard time believing he has when I hear news reports like this one from 1470 WMBD:

Peoria School District 150 is being asked to participate in an Enterprise Zone to allow a developer to construct a combination of retail space and housing units along Main Street. Devonshire Group plans to build Main Street Commons at the site of the former Walgreen’s at Main and Bourland…. If District 150 goes along the developers will pay property taxes on only the current value of the property for five years…. City of Peoria Economic Development Director Craig Hullinger says District 150’s participation is vital to the project moving forward.

Dude! District 150 is LOSING MONEY! They’re in terrible, terrible debt. They’re closing schools. They’re laying off teachers. They’re raising class sizes. They’re getting ready to issue $38 million in 15-year bonds to pay off short term debts and make payroll. And… AND —

I have here the 2008 Tax Computation Report on District 150 that just came out a few weeks ago. Would you like to know how much property tax revenue District 150 is not receiving because of tax increment financing (TIF) districts? $3,027,801.91. And the City has already put the new Marriott Hotel in a TIF, so District 150 won’t see any benefit from that development. And the museum is in a TIF, so the district won’t see any benefit from that development. And now that a developer comes to Main street, the City says, “Hey, District 150, would you mind doing without a little more tax revenue for just a little bit longer?” Five years, that is… unless they extend it.

This couldn’t have been suggested at a worse time. And the really crazy part? Check out the quote from the developer about this project:

Shawn Luesse of the Devonshire Group told the District 150 school board Monday the project is targeting Bradley University students. “Our feasibility study shows there’s a housing need for Bradley students,” Luesse said. “We would virtually be full overnight.”

Wait a minute…. If it’s going to be this successful, explain to me why they need this tax incentive to make it happen. Is it just because everybody else gets incentives, so now we’ve trained our developers to have an entitlement mentality?

City of Peoria, Crime

Inconsistent enforcement of non-discrimination ordinance raises questions

18 Comments

EmergePeoria thinks the City of Peoria is a little inconsistent when it comes to not discriminating against “protected classes” of citizens.

At issue is the City’s recent smackdown of the Elbo Room bar. In case you’ve been out of town for several weeks and missed the story, here’s the scoop: the owner of the bar posted a sign outside stating, “We are not a gay bar. We are a karaoke bar. […] Diesel is down the street.” (“Diesel” is, in fact, a gay bar.) There were protests, allegations of “homophobia” and other histrionics in response to this perceived discrimination. Then the City’s deputy liquor commissioner (Councilman Eric Turner) stepped in and sent the owner a letter threatening to revoke his liquor license and take other legal action if he were observed to be discriminating against gays in the future.

The thing is, the City didn’t take similar action against other bars that had been turning away black patrons on the pretense of dress code violations. EmergePeoria observes:

In 2007 the Downtown Peoria bars were unaccepting of Black citizens supposedly because of their dress and demeanor which was considered to be “intimidating”. Instead of making downtown bars comply in the acceptance of Black patrons, the City Council, under the leadership of Mayor Ardis, undertook the notion of liquor expansion to have alternate places for “Blacks to go”…. In other words, the rights of Blacks are not protected, were minimized and only compartmentalized by this city and it’s council, whereas the rights of gays have been expressed to have somehow been protected.

In April 2003, the City added “sexual orientation” to its list of individuals or groups against which you cannot discriminate relating to employment and public accommodations. Already on that list: race. Yet that group is not being as stridently defended by the Deputy Liquor Commissioner as the newest addition. Why? Is separate-but-equal okay for some groups but not others in the eyes of the City?

EmergePeoria is right — there is definitely some inconsistency going on here.