Tag Archives: Curphy Smith

City of Peoria, Traffic

Cancellations frustrate Traffic Commissioner

5 Comments

Curphy Smith, a member of Peoria’s Traffic Commission and a candidate for City Council in the last election, wants to know why the Commission’s meetings keep getting cancelled. “Why was the meeting cancelled for the 3rd time in a row?” he asked in a recent e-mail that went to several members of the City Council and staff.

At the City Council meeting Tuesday night, during a discussion on the Riverfront Entertainment District, Councilman Sandberg asked why the Traffic Commission wasn’t consulted, considering the district involved closing Water Street. Public Works Director Dave Barber said he didn’t see it as a big traffic issue because there isn’t much traffic on Water Street.

Smith sees things differently. “I disagree with Mr. Barber’s response,” he said in his e-mail. “Any traffic (car, train, foot, bike, etc) at any given levels should be addressed. I think if more items were brought before the traffic commission we could spend our money more wisely and have better designs that promote safer and more pedestrian friendly roads.”

One of the items on the Traffic Commission’s work plan is to develop a city-wide neighborhood traffic calming plan. That effort remains stalled, even as private companies such as Methodist Hospital are implementing traffic calming for their own businesses. Smith applauds Methodist’s changes to Hamilton Boulevard and wonders why the City continues to drag its feet on rolling out these options to all neighborhoods: “[Methodist] did a wonderful job of taking the opportunity to introduce a very pedestrian friendly street level which includes bump outs, bike paths, colored crosswalks and other traffic calming measures. Are measure[s] such as these that are so obvious to other communities and companies, not that important to us? Why is that?”

Public Works Director Dave Barber had this response to Smith’s e-mail:

As to the cancellation of the Traffic Commission there are two basic reasons they were cancelled.

The first is that the Commission has two vacancies and gathering a quorum has been difficult. When scheduling the meeting we want to make sure that a quorum will be present so any action items can be addressed. It’s not fair to those who can make to be present and then not be able to address business matters.

The leads to the second reason for the cancellations. There have [not] been any actionable items for the Commission to address. Many items relating to traffic in [Peoria] are handled through administrative procedures and do not need to have Traffic Commission approvals nor Council approvals for many items. This reduces the potential matters for the Commission to address. This enables a more rapid response relative to addressing customer issues and provides for quicker response time. As I have addressed with the Commission in the past it does not seem appropriate to have meetings to just present updates. We can do this via email without the need for staff dedicated to taking and printing minutes and preparing and delivering packets to Commission members. I have asked the Commission to address their future plans and present a proposed list of what the Commission should be doing but I strongly believe meeting just to meet is not in the best interests on the Commission members nor is it a wise allocation of limited staff time and expense.

I will have Nick Stoffer meet with the acting Chair of the Traffic Commission to establish an agenda for the next meeting and will ask that the Commission address the matter of what they should and should not be addressing. I would suggest the Commission continue to meet as needed and not every month when not required.

The Traffic Commission has been without a chairman since Pat Sullivan resigned last October. A new chairman has not yet been appointed by the Mayor. Furthermore, the two vacancies on the Commission have gone unfilled for months. There were vacancies when the Heart of Peoria Commission was disbanded and its members were to be appointed to other commissions. All but two HOPC members were appointed to other commissions, but none were appointed to the Traffic Commission.

“As far as the second reason for the meetings being cancelled,” Smith responded to Barber, “I will disagree. I think I laid it out in my last email that I believe there have been many items for us to address. I have given my input on the Jefferson Street project and the Glen Oak project as well as others. I would suggest we start asking for our input in the beginning stages and not near the end.”

This is the same problem HOPC faced. Instead of seeing the commission as an asset — a part of the process that could help improve the built environment for all citizens — presentations to and recommendations from the commission are viewed as a nuisance or impediment to getting the project done. Thus, we continue to see regrettable development patterns and wonder why things never improve.

Smith concludes, “My belief and you can correct me if I am wrong is that you [Director Barber] would just like to do away with the commission. You have made it clear in your response that ‘[many] items’ ‘do not need to have Traffic Commission approvals.’ I am not looking for us to approve anything, but I do believe we can be a major asset in making sure the city staff is addressing appropriate measures through input and recommendations.”

Given the number of meeting cancellations, the lack of action on the Mayor’s part to appoint a chairman or fill vacancies on the commission, and Director Barber’s easy dismissal of the Traffic Commission’s role in traffic-related projects, it’s obvious that there is little support for the Traffic Commission at City Hall. Maybe it will be the next commission to be disbanded, leaving one less opportunity for citizen input and involvement. That would be a shame.

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.

2009 Campaign

Second district race heats up

26 Comments

These anonymous flyers started appearing on porches in neighborhoods surrounding Bradley University today.

The flyer implies that Second District City Council candidate Curphy Smith and his campaign chairman Paul Wilkinson are in cahoots with attorney Jeff Hall who represents the Sigma Nu Fraternity in their lawsuit against Second District incumbent Barbara Van Auken. The unsigned flyer says the lawsuit has “become a driving catalyst for for Curphy Smith’s campaign waging Bradley students against regular citizens of the Second District.”

The flyer goes on to quote an e-mail from Jeff Hall to Bradley students encouraging them to vote for Smith and alleging that Van Auken will “exact revenge on the Greek system at Bradley” if reelected. Finally, it states that the Smith campaign is providing free rides to the Election Commission for early voting and alleges “impermissible electioneering may be occurring . . . within 100 feet of the Election Commission.”

When asked for his response to the flyer, Smith stated via e-mail, “While Councilwoman Van Auken’s decision to run a negative campaign is unfortunate, by no means was it unexpected. I fully expected these types of tactics and expect she will continue them. I have committed to an issue-based campaign against Barbara VanAuken as a city council representative. Instead of distracting the residents the 2nd district with negative attacks and muddying the waters with lies, I would like to discuss how we can make the 2nd district and the city of Peoria a better place for all of us.”

Van Auken, however, said via e-mail that she had not seen the flyer before I e-mailed a copy of it to her. She went on to say, “It was not authorized by my campaign or it would have so indicated. I have no idea who may have sent it. The only message I agree with or endorse is the one stating my desire to continue the progress that’s been made in the Second District as outlined in my authorized campaign literature.”

I talked to Wilkinson on the phone, and he stated in response to the charges on the flyer that the Smith campaign is “not involved in the lawsuit.” They are not trying to pit Bradley against other Second District residents, he continued. “We’re trying to bring people together.” He also said that Jeff Hall is not a member of the campaign staff, and that Hall acted on his own when writing the e-mail asking Bradley students to support Smith.

Hall did not return a request for comment.

I checked with Peoria’s Election Administrator Tom Bride, and he said there was nothing illegal about giving people a ride to a polling place. He also wasn’t sure that a car could get within 100 feet of the entrance to the room where early voting takes place.

My take: I take Barbara at her word that she didn’t authorize this flyer. But it’s obviously a Van Auken supporter that created and is distributing it. Van Auken should condemn the flyer as dirty politics and make it clear that she does not approve this kind of “help” from her supporters. I’m sure she would expect the same of Smith if the tables were turned.

Likewise, Hall’s e-mail, assuming it is quoted accurately, is objectionable. I would also like to see Smith condemn the personal attacks on Van Auken as dirty politics as well.

It’s unfortunate that the person who created this flyer has decided to make the Bradley issue even more polarizing than it already is. Note the choice of language: “Bradley students” versus “regular citizens of the Second District” (emphasis added). I guess Bradley residents are irregular citizens, eh? Or second-class citizens, perhaps? That’s not the way to win friends and influence people. I know it can be challenging living near college students, but I don’t believe antagonizing them, marginalizing them, or being condescending toward them is going to improve things.

And, this probably goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: the person who created and distributed this unsigned, anonymous flyer is a coward. It’s easy to sound tough when you hide behind anonymity.

2009 Campaign, City Council

Schock to stump for Smith in 2nd District

18 Comments

All politics is local, they say, and you don’t get much more local than a City Council race. That race in the second district is heating up. Incumbent Barbara Van Auken’s challenger Curphy Smith has recently announced a fundraiser for his campaign that will feature “special guest” Aaron Schock:

smith-shock-fundraiser

Not a bad move politically. Schock is popular and has shown an ability to get support even in Democrat-leaning districts (Van Auken, incidentally, is a Democrat). It won’t hurt Smith to hitch his wagon to a rising star. Until now, conventional wisdom has been that Smith is pulling in what I like to call the “NVA” (“Not Van Auken”) vote. Getting Schock’s endorsement may give voters pause to consider Smith on his own merits. If nothing else, it raises public awareness of his campaign, which hasn’t gotten much press since there was no primary in the second district.