Tag Archives: downtown

City of Peoria, Redistricting

New maps move downtown, Warehouse District to District 3

12 Comments

The latest proposed maps from Peoria’s Planning and Growth Department show downtown and the Warehouse District being moved from the first to the third district, and the West Bluff moving from the second to the first district. You can see the maps and population information on the city’s website, or here:

07052011-Redistricting-Maps

The City’s Redistricting Committee had asked staff to put more emphasis on keeping established neighborhoods together, and also to take into consideration the future growth predictions for the city. Each district needs to have relatively equal population, but can have up to a 5% deviation. Based on the deviations on these new maps, the City evidently expects to see the most growth in the first and second districts, and the least growth in the fourth and fifth districts. In 2000, the City accurately predicted the most growth would be in the fifth district.

The next redistricting committee meeting is Tuesday, July 5, at 4:30 p.m. in City Council chambers. Also, the West Bluff Council will host an open forum for West Bluff neighbors to discuss the importance of redistricting at 7 p.m. Monday, July 18, at the Bradley University Student Center.

City of Peoria, Warehouse District

You need residents downtown if you want ‘synergy’

Leave a comment

John Sharp recently asked on his j-blog, “what’s it going to take to sustain Downtown activity? …What’s it going to take to make more evenings in Downtown Peoria look like the Fourth of July than some Wednesday night in August?”

The answer is “downtown residents.”

There are never going to be enough special events downtown to sustain a steady stream of people swooping into downtown from the suburbs. There has to be a built-in population who live downtown, who shop downtown, who eat at downtown restaurants, who drive demand for more retail and restaurant offerings, who utilize public transit, etc. That’s the only way to get “synergy” downtown.

There have been a couple of plans to do this. There is still significant interest in developing the Warehouse District by creating loft apartments — if the City will fix Washington Street so it’s pedestrian friendly. Then there is former Economic Development Director Craig Hullinger’s idea to extend Water street north of the Riverplex and build townhouses along what he dubbed “River Trail Drive.” That project has been set back by the recession, according to Mr. Hullinger (who still keeps up on development in the City) and Bobby Gray (in the City’s Economic Development Department). They’re both optimistic that a viable offer to develop the area will materialize in the near future as the economy picks up again.

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 of Peoria, Taxes

Are downtown properties underassessed?

16 Comments

While I was looking at some property information on Main Street, I noticed a disparity between the assessed value of the property and what actual sales have been. Here are the properties adjacent to the Pere Marquette on Main:

Property ID Address Assessed Value 2007 Taxes
1809206011 533 Main $14,280.00 $1,174.82
1809206012 531 Main $178,700.00 $14,701.58
1809206013 527-529 Main $87,580.00 $7,205.18
1809206014 519 Main $58,780.00 $4,835.82
TOTAL $339,340.00 $27,917.40

That gives those properties, according to the tax assessor, a fair market value of $1,018,020 (i.e., three times the assessed value). However, also according to the assessor, these four properties were sold for $1.05 million in 1997, and $1.5 million in 2004. So the current assessed value is lower than the properties were worth over 10 years ago, and a half-million dollars lower than they were worth four years ago. Underassessment means lost revenue to the city as well as the county.

Are we talking about a lot of money in lost tax receipts here? Maybe not one year from just these four properties (although every little bit helps when the city is looking at a $2.2 million deficit). But over time, it adds up.

And what if this isn’t an anomaly? What if other downtown properties are underassessed? I think it’s worth investigating, especially with the city in need of extra money and contemplating raising taxes and fees. Why shouldn’t downtown property holders pay their fair share?