One Thursday morning a month, councilmen Eric Turner and Jim Montelongo would hold a breakfast chat at City Hall where all citizens can come and talk about their concerns. It appears newly-elected councilman Chuck Weaver is going to continue that practice. A city press release states that Weaver and Turner will be in City Hall Room 112 this morning, May 5, starting at 7:30 a.m. All citizens are invited and encouraged to attend.
Tag Archives: Eric Turner
Turner defends putting strip club next to day care center
“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!
Potential Big Al’s location fraught with problems
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.
Don’t be fooled by empty rhetoric from City officials
There’s an article in today’s Journal Star I just couldn’t let pass without comment.
City officials including Mayor Jim Ardis have … expressed some of their frustrations with other taxing bodies in Peoria — namely Peoria Public Schools District 150 — for increasing its property tax rate while the city avoids similar hikes despite increasing political pressure to do so.
Reporter John Sharp did a good job of covering what I’m about to say, but I just want to emphasize it: The City didn’t raise property taxes because it raised taxes on our natural gas bills. The mayor and city council members can crow all they want about how they didn’t raise our property taxes (and District 150 did), but the truth is that the City will be taking more money out of our pockets next year than District 150.
According to this report, “Under the projected rate next year [for District 150], the owner of a $100,000 home would expect to pay about $1,640, excluding any Homestead exemptions or increase in assessed valuation, an approximately $13 increase [emphasis added] above this year under the same determinations.” In contrast, the natural gas tax is “a 3.5 percent tax on gross receipts resulting in about $33 to $34 more [emphasis added] for the typical residential user each year.” So the average homeowner will only be paying $13 more next year to District 150, but $33 to $34 more to the City of Peoria, albeit by different means. The total dollar increases are also significantly different: the City’s natural gas tax raises $2.2 million in revenue, whereas District 150’s increase raises up to $900,000 in additional revenue.
Furthermore, guess who else gets to pay the natural gas tax? That’s right — District 150! So the council has raised taxes on the school district, and is now complaining that the school district is raising property taxes. To a certain extent, the City is really raising property taxes by proxy. District 150 doesn’t have the ability to tax natural gas, garbage, water, liquor, etc., like the City does. When their costs increase, they have to go to the property owners to get more revenue.
Keeping these facts in mind, consider these outrageous statements from City officials quoted in the article:
“It doesn’t seem like there has been a lot of consideration from the other taxing bodies to continue to (not) increase their portion (of the property tax).” [Mayor Ardis]
“We’re on the edges of a tax revolt in this country…. The bottom line is we have to live within our means. If we have to afford less government, we have to put less government in place.” [Eric Turner]
This from two members of the council who voted to spend $55 million on expanding the Civic Center, spend $37 million to build a hotel (including a $9 million developers fee), give away the $10 million Sears block for $1, give away the $2.8 million Kellar Branch for $1 (and indirectly cost the taxpayers $1.25 million for its acquisition by the Park District), back a $3.3 million loan to now-defunct Firefly Energy (resulting in over $1 million owed by the City)… need I go on?
“If you are a citizen of Peoria and open your tax bill each year, you will see your taxes have been increased year after year…. I do think it’s important we continue on the city side to hold our property taxes away from an increase.” [Ryan Spain]
Apparently, all other taxes are okay to raise. Fees on our water bills, taxes on our Ameren bills, sales taxes downtown, the continuation of HRA taxes to pay for the overbuilt Civic Center — these apparently don’t have any affect on citizens. As long as we “hold our property taxes away from an increase,” then the quality of life here is golden!
A word to the wise: Council members in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
No choice but to tax us more, Turner says
The Peoria City Council endorsed the creation of yet another tax Tuesday night. This time, the tax is on natural gas:
By a 7-2 vote, the council endorsed a “hybrid tax” in which two different assessments will be levied on natural gas users. The first, which will affect residential, commercial and industrial customers, is a 3.5 percent tax on gross receipts resulting in about $33 to $34 more for the typical residential user each year.
The second is a $0.0035 (35 hundredths of a penny) per therm tax on larger consumers who purchase natural gas on the open market.
The tax is expected to generate $2.2 million in 2011, and $2.4 million in years thereafter. The 2011 tax will be assessed on February’s Ameren bills.
So now, during the coldest month of winter, the City is going to start taxing everyone for their natural gas usage. Councilman Eric Turner said (according to the Journal Star), “There is no one around this horseshoe who wanted to do this. (But) we did not have a choice.”
I suppose it’s true enough that the council had no choice but to raise revenue in some way, but that’s not really the whole story, is it? The truth is that the council left itself with no choice because of prior poor decisions.
For instance, there was the Firefly loan guarantee that cost the City over a million dollars. There was the $2.8 million-appraised Kellar Branch rail line that the City gave to the Park District for $1. And the $10 million Sears block that the City gave to Peoria County for another dollar. Let’s not forget the $55 million the City spent to overbuild the Civic Center and the $34 million they’re poised to spend on a hotel to connect to it (this amount includes a developer fee of $9 million).
Some of that money was in assets that could have been sold. Some of it is debt that we are or will soon be paying. And some of it is in cold hard cash. But all of that money is flying out of our pockets due to poor decisions. Now the chickens are coming home to roost, and we suddenly do “not have a choice” but to raise taxes on Peoria residents.
It’s like a guy who spends his paycheck on cigarettes, alcohol, and poker games coming home and telling his wife, “Gee, honey, we have no choice but to pay our bills with the credit card this month.”
No choice, indeed.
So far, five people are definitely running, and two definitely aren’t
City Council hopefuls have six days to file petitions to be placed on the ballot. Today, five candidates filed:
- Ryan Spain (incumbent)
- Eric Turner (incumbent)
- Chuck Grayeb (former councilman)
- Chuck Weaver (Zoning Board of Appeals chairman)
- Jim Stowell (District 150 School Board member)
Two incumbents are definitely not running:
- Jim Montelongo wants to pay more attention to his family and his business
- George Jacob is recovering from a motorcycle accident
Potential candidates have to collect a minimum of 165 signatures to be placed on the ballot, and they have until 5 p.m. next Monday (Nov. 22) to file. Incumbent Gary Sandberg is expected to file at 4:59 p.m. on Nov. 22, as is his usual practice. He likes to be the last name on the ballot. As for who will be first on the ballot — we’ll find out tomorrow. It will be one of three people: Spain, Weaver, or Grayeb. They filed at the same time, so their names will be placed in a lottery to determine their order on the ballot.
If more than 10 people run, there will be a primary on Tuesday, February 22, 2011. The general election will be held Tuesday, April 5, 2011.
Inconsistent enforcement of non-discrimination ordinance raises questions
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.
Liquor license moratorium proposed
On Tuesday night, the Peoria City Council will consider a request to place a three-year moratorium on new liquor licenses in a three-block area downtown (see map to right for specific boundaries).
That’s what the council will consider. Why this moratorium is being proposed is sketchy. According to the Journal Star, it comes at the request of Deputy Liquor Commissioner Eric Turner.
Turner has gotten numerous requests from business people wanting to open taverns around the hotel area, which is currently home to several taverns, he said Thursday.
But in order to plan for development around the hotel, he said, the city needs to hold off before approving any more taverns. Earlier this year, the council voted down a request to open a tavern at 619 Main St., the former Dungeon Music & Apparel Inc., next to SOP’s.
“Let’s get a plan together before we know what the area should look like,” Turner said. “If someone is going to make this much investment in the city and the city puts up tax dollars, we need a nice area that will spur Downtown development. We are trying to do the right thing.”
So, evidently the city is going to “plan for development around the hotel” and determine “what the area should look like.” And apparently they expect this effort to take three years. Mayor Ardis mentioned elsewhere in the article what they don’t want the area to look like: “We don’t want to stifle new business Downtown, but we don’t want the entire area surrounding the new hotel to be gin joints, with all due respect.” The council communication further states, “The moratorium will not affect the liquor establishments already site approved for the retail sale of alcohol and would not prohibit site approvals for assembly halls or stadiums, hotels or rental halls.”
Is it just me, or does this seem to be an attempt to protect the new hotel’s bar and restaurant(s) from competition? There is no agenda item establishing a process to develop a “plan for development around the hotel.” This plan didn’t go before the liquor commission for a public hearing. This plan has seemingly come completely out of the blue.
Also hard to understand is why the council is concerned about “gin joints” around the new hotel, but doesn’t have any problem allowing a strip club in the same area. They even changed the adult use ordinance to allow it into the area. Now they want to change the liquor ordinance to keep new bars and pubs out. I can’t put my finger on it, but something just doesn’t add up.
First steps toward Big Al’s move approved
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.