Tag Archives: Peoria City Council

City Council, City of Peoria

Council preview 4-28-09

14 Comments

Here are some items of note that will be discussed and possibly decided on Tuesday (if they don’t defer everything like last week):

  • Defending BVA. The City will be defending Council Member Barbara Van Auken against charges brought by the Sigma Nu Fraternity. This is the official notification to the council.

  • Funding PACVB. The Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau wants to keep getting extra revenue from the hotel tax. The hotel tax is the “H” portion of the infamous HRA (Hotel, Restaurant, Amusement) tax. The PACVB originally got 40% of the revenue from that tax. Since July 2000, however, they’ve been getting an extra 4% to pay for the costs of leasing and subsequently buying their 456 Fulton Street office. Thus, this extra amount was supposed to be eliminated once the mortgage was paid off, which was supposed to be in 2006. But, unbeknownst to the Civic Center or the City, the PACVB refinanced their loan in 2003 over a longer time period. The difference between their old mortgage payment and their new lower payment was diverted to operations. The chickens came home to roost in 2006 when the PACVB came to the City asking for that 4% increase to be extended so they could continue paying their mortgage for another four years (until 2010). City Council members were none too happy, but gave them the money– for one year. So in 2007, the request came back again that the extra 4% be extended through 2010. That was approved. One would think that would be the end of it.

    But no! They’re back again, and now they want that extra 4% to be permanent. Of course, the current council communication doesn’t include any of the background information I just provided, nor does it explain why the PACVB wants it extended permanently, what they’re going to use the money for, or what benefit it would bring to the city. It also doesn’t include any information on whether the Civic Center Authority concurs with this request. It’s a poor excuse for a council communication, frankly.

    Furthermore, take a look at this breakdown of income sources published by the PACVB in their annual report:

    pacvb-income

    Keep in mind that this is the Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, covering eight counties: Bureau, Fulton, Marshall, Mason, Peoria, Stark, Tazewell, and Woodford. Now, doesn’t that income distribution look a little disproportionate? The PACVB needs to do more than explain why they should get an extra 4% indefinitely; they need to explain why the City shouldn’t reduce the other 40% of H tax revenue they’re receiving. Perhaps a reduction here could pay for the latest $500,000 upgrade the Civic Center has floated.

  • Upgrading streets around Glen Oak School. The city is contemplating upgrading the streets around the new Glen Oak School. This is necessary because the city allowed the School District to increase their footprint dramatically and cut off Frye, a major East Bluff thoroughfare. This not only affects motorists, but also utilities. A water line will have to be relocated along Maryland, and AmerenCILCO will have to relocate their facilities from the abandoned portion of Frye. A block of brick street on Maryland and two blocks of brick street on Kansas will be converted to asphalt. Upgrading the streets, curbs, and sidewalks is estimated to cost about $2.93 million. If they want to add ornamental streetlights and other streetscape enchancements, it would cost an additional $1.35 million. That should be a breeze, considering we can afford to give a private developer $40 million to build a hotel downtown. I sure don’t understand all the handwringing in the council communication about “the need to establish priorities” and “the need to further consider bonding for improvements.” There was none of that kind of talk in the communication about the — what was it they called the Marriott/Pere Marquette project? — oh yes, the “wonderful development”!

  • Approving Harrison Homes Subdivision. In addition to the new Harrison School, the Peoria Housing Authority is planning to put in a “RiverWest” type development to replace the slums known as Harrison Homes. Before the council on Tuesday will be the preliminary plat showing how the neighborhood will be arranged. My only complaint is that they have a great opportunity to restore the street grid system, but they are choosing instead to make inefficient use of their land by putting a couple streets diagonally. Why? To what advantage? It’s demonstrably inefficient and incongruous with the surrounding area. Why wouldn’t we want to restore the grid system, as is recommended in the Heart of Peoria Plan? Yes, that last question was rhetorical.

  • Saving money. The city is still trying to save money rather than raise taxes. What this effectively means is that they’re going to continue subsidizing downtown parking, the Civic Center, the proposed museum, the Gateway Building, and the “wonderful development,” at the expense of basic services such as sealcoating of streets, weed control, building inspections, and code enforcement. The city really knows how to tighten its belt when it comes to services that benefit all Peoria residents, doesn’t it?

No doubt, all these items will pass with little or no discussion, since what we really value on the Peoria City Council is “consensus.” Who needs deliberation or critical thinking, especially where the public can see? They make for long, boring, and informative meetings. We want a council that just comes and votes “yes” or “no” as determined ahead of time in private meetings outside the purview of the Open Meetings Act. No fuss, no muss.

2009 Campaign

Peoria Chronicle Endorsements — Peoria City Council: Smith, Akeson, Irving

12 Comments

All the City of Peoria district representative positions are up for election Tuesday, but only three are contested. First District Councilman Clyde Gulley and Fourth District Councilman Bill Spears are unopposed. Here are my endorsements for the other three offices:

  • Second District: Curphy Smith — When incumbent Barbara Van Auken ran for office four years ago, she promised to have a more inclusive leadership style than her predecessor, Marcella Teplitz. Regrettably, that has not come to pass. Secrecy on the council has gotten worse, and Van Auken is right in the thick of it. From the Marriott Hotel plan to spend $40 million that was kept secret from the public until the eleventh hour and passed nearly unanimously, to plans for cutting the city’s budget deficit that were kept secret even from other council members, Van Auken has not distinguished herself as “inclusive.” Her other campaign promises — restoring Fire Station 11 to “full service” and eliminating the $6 per month garbage fee — have also gone unfulfilled, although Van Auken supporters will point out that she followed the advice of the Fire Chief on the former issue. She said she supported the Renaissance Park plan, but after doing a traffic study on Main Street, she asked for no funding in 2009 to actually make improvements. It should come as no surprise that some of her biggest supporters also favor no changes to Main Street.

    Beyond that, I’m disappointed in Van Auken’s voting record. She has consistently voted to make exceptions to the Land Development Code that favors developers over residents. She has gotten few concessions from institutions wishing to expand, whether it be Bradley University encroaching into the Arbor District or Methodist Hospital taking over Hamilton Boulevard and inching closer to the Randolph-Roanoke District. A publicly-funded arbor is little compensation for destabilizing an older, mature neighborhood and worsening traffic issues by allowing two important thoroughfares to be vacated. She has nullified two historic preservation requests because she didn’t like the timing of the requests. She ran on a fiscally-conservative, essential-services-first platform, yet supports the proposed museum, the Marriott Hotel plan, the Civic Center expansion, and other so-called “progressive” issues.

    Curphy Smith is not the ideal candidate. He doesn’t have the grasp on city issues that I would like to see. But he’s open-minded and willing to listen to both sides of an issue in an unprejudiced way. From what I’ve observed when he was an officer in the Uplands Residential Association, he was not afraid to bring controversial ideas to the table. He could have a spirited debate, but not hold a grudge against those who didn’t vote his way. Since he’s a banker, he would also bring his financial skills to the table, which will offset the loss of Bob Manning who isn’t running for reelection. The second district needs a change, and Smith has a lot of potential. He is endorsed.

  • Third District: Beth Akeson — I wrote a lengthy endorsement before the primary election in support of Beth Akeson (read it here), so I’ll just reiterate my summary statement here:

    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. […]

    I sincerely believe that Beth Akeson is the candidate that will make the biggest positive difference for her district and the city at large.

  • Fifth District: Dan Irving — There’s no incumbent in this race, as Patrick Nichting is pursuing the City Treasurer’s job instead. So the candidates are Dan Irving and Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald, both of whom ran unsuccessfully in the last at-large election (coming in sixth and ninth, respectively).

    I endorsed Irving in the at-large election because of “the priority he puts on core services (fire, police) and his support for older neighborhoods (through the Heart of Peoria Plan and other initiatives).” I haven’t heard him talk about those issues so much now that he’s running for fifth district, which is understandable. The Heart of Peoria Plan doesn’t cover the fifth district, and the economy is quite a bit different these days, so more focus is put on economic development.

    Both candidates favor the museum tax and the $40 million subsidy for building a Marriott Hotel, even though neither of these are core services and are hardly affordable in the city’s current economic condition. That’s disappointing, but not surprising coming from the fifth district.

    Cassel-Fitzgerald, just like in the at-large campaign, sounds more like she’s running for school board rather than city council. In fact, education is one of the main planks in her platform, even though the city can do little about those issues.

    Overall, Irving has a better grasp on city issues. Two years later, I still find him to be informed, level-headed, and realistic in his approach. He is endorsed.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council Roundup 3/24/09 (Updated)

10 Comments

Some notable items from Tuesday’s council meeting:

  • First District Councilman Clyde Gulley voted with the majority of the council to give stimulus funds to a private not-for-profit organization in the third district instead of repairing sidewalks in the first district. Gulley is running unopposed on the April ballot to represent the first district for another term.

  • The council learned that tax revenues are down, resulting in a projected $2.5 million budget deficit. It could get worse next year. Naturally, the staff is looking to cut police officers and road repairs to make up the difference. They’re not talking about laying off any police officers — just not filling vacant positions. So public safety and public works will suffer, while private developers of the downtown Marriott will rake in $40 million in public money. Priorities, you know. Another vacant position they’re talking about not filling: city manager. This is their way of keeping Holling on indefinitely, contrary to the agreement that he would only be temporary until they could get a permanent replacement. They’re going to treat him as permanent, but continue calling him “interim” until some undetermined point in the distant future, evidently.

  • The sales tax just went up 1% within the boundaries of the Hospitality Improvement Zone downtown. These boundaries are very strange — I’m going to try to get a map from the city. Generally speaking — very generally — the HIZ is bounded by Kumpf, Fulton, Adams, and Fayette, but the actual boundary zigzags into alleys (active and vacated) and avoids certain blocks completely. Here’s the map:

    hizmapwithaerial1

    Nevertheless, if you go to a restaurant or bar within the HIZ boundaries, the sales tax on your meal/drinks will now be 11%. If the museum tax passes, it will be 11.25%. Meanwhile, over in Tazewell County right across the river, the sales tax is 8%.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

District 150 looking to cell towers for supplemental income

26 Comments

cell_tower_ibs91District 150 has found a new way to get revenue: allow private companies to erect cell phone towers on school property.

In November 2008, the City Council approved a request for U.S. Cellular to erect a cell phone tower at Loucks Edison School (now Thomas Jefferson), 2503 N. University St. Sources tell me the the school district will receive $2000 per month from this lease arrangement, and that more cell towers are planned on other properties, including Whittier School. Putting cell towers on school and church property is common — but controversial — all over the country.

The controversy is over safety. The Federal Communications Commission has several documents regarding cell tower (or “cell site”) radiation levels, and they’ve basically determined that they are very safe. “Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations, especially those with tower-mounted antennas, have shown that ground-level power densities are well below limits recommended by RF/microwave safety standards,” says OET [Office of Engineering and Technology] Bulletin 56 (p. 21). Well enough below limits that such cell sites “are considered ‘categorically excluded’ from the requirement for routine environmental processing for RF exposure” by the FCC, according to “A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety.”

Not everyone is convinced. People Against Cell Towers at Schools (PACTS) is an organization started by citizens in Tampa, Florida, that believes cell phone towers should not be placed on or near school playgrounds. They cite a litany of research, including a 2004 article from the American Academy of Pediatrics which stated children are more susceptible to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields and recommended “additional research and the development of precautionary policies in the face of scientific uncertainty.” In fact, most of the research cited takes a similar approach. For example, the American Cancer Society is quoted as saying, “we do not have full information on health effects… in particular, not enough time has elapsed to permit epidemiological studies.” In other words, exposure to ELF magnetic fields may or may not be dangerous, and until we know for sure, we should limit exposure to children. Furthermore, in response to appeals to the FCC’s report of cell site safety, they say “government agencies have a bad track record in protecting us against long term threats. Think about some of the major oversights in health threats such as tobacco, lead paint, DDT, PCBs and asbestos.”

So far in Peoria, there appears to be little or no concern. The cell tower at the University St. school building had no public opposition. However, that might be because the request went through after the school was closed and before Thomas Jefferson school was relocated there due to the fire at their Florence Avenue facility. The forthcoming request for a cell tower at Whittier will likely be the bellwether of public reaction to the idea.

One other concern that is expressed about cell towers is that they are not exactly aesthetically pleasing. Some communities try to hide them by making them look like trees — seriously. When I was in California last year, I saw a number of cell towers disguised as palm trees. Pictures on Google show towers camouflaged as pine trees, too. Clever, eh?

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.

2009 Campaign, City Council

Akeson, Riggenbach advance

8 Comments

Voters in Peoria’s third district selected two candidates to face off in the April 7 general election: Tim Riggenbach and Beth Akeson. The final results were:

Candidate Votes Percent
Timothy D. Riggenbach 507 54%
Beth Akeson 394 42%
Kelley C. McGownd Mammen 38 4%

Only 113 votes separate the two advancing candidates. Voter turnout was only 7% — 943 people voted out of 13,479 registered voters. (In case you’re doing the math, there were four “under votes,” meaning four people didn’t vote for any of the three candidates.) Since the April 7 general election will also include a school board race and a sales tax referendum, turnout will likely be quite a bit larger.

It promises to be a close and interesting race.

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 of Peoria, Energy Issues, Gary Sandberg, Peoria Police

City trying to cut down on idling vehicles

11 Comments

The City of Peoria is going to try to persuade its employees not to leave their city vehicles idling for long periods of time. I wouldn’t say they’re “cracking down” on the practice, because there doesn’t seem to be much more than an awareness campaign planned at the moment. But it’s not a bad first step.

Several citizens, including councilman Gary Sandberg, noticed that some police officers who would eat breakfast at a local restaurant in Peoria left their squad cars on and idling in the parking lot the whole time they were inside eating — sometimes as much as an hour or longer. When the City’s Energy Efficiency Task Force submitted their report to the council, Sandberg asked interim City Manager Henry Holling to look into the idling problem, since that’s a huge waste of energy, not to mention unnecessary pollution.

After that, the police officers never came back to the local restaurant. They apparently eat breakfast somewhere else now. That prompted Sandberg to say at a recent council meeting that “moving the problem is not solving the problem.”

So now, according to this week’s “issues update,” the city is giving all its employees who drive a city vehicle an anti-idling brochure: “A change in behavior will be reinforced with flyers posted on bulletin boards and articles in the employee newsletters. Department Heads are also emphasizing in staff meetings the need to reduce engine idling.” It doesn’t appear, however, that there will be a policy instituted or enforced.

My take: This will be great for conscientious employees who probably aren’t letting their vehicles idle excessively anyway. For those who leave their cars idling for an hour while they eat breakfast, I doubt this will make any difference whatsoever, some of them even they go and find the best dash cam online so they car are secured while they’re apart of the car. Those employees already feel justified in leaving their cars on for excessive periods of time, and will likely change their behavior only if told by a superior to knock it off. So that’s precisely what needs to happen in addition to this public-awareness campaign for any significant change to occur.

If you witness excessive idling of a city vehicle, write down the vehicle number and location and e-mail it to me. I’ll pass that information along to the city.

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.

2009 Campaign

Fifth district contest down to two

Leave a comment

Doug Crew has pulled out of the fifth district council race, canceling the need for a primary there. That leaves Dan Irving and Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald, both of whom ran two years ago for at-large council seats.

In the at-large race, the top five vote-getters each won a seat on the council. Irving came in sixth. Cassel-Fitzgerald came in ninth. Taking a look at the precinct results, Irving got more votes than Cassel-Fitzgerald in every precinct in the fifth district. Of course, past performance is no guarantee of future results, but this is a good sign for Dan. (Full disclosure: I supported Dan Irving in the 2007 at-large election.)

Something else that would help Irving is if he can pull in the same endorsements he picked up two years ago, which included Ray LaHood, Jim Ardis, and Patrick Nichting.