There’s a new conflict in the museum soap opera. Here’s the skinny: the County wants to own portion of the Sears block on which the proposed museum would be built, but they don’t want to pay the City for it, and the City isn’t too keen on that idea.
Let’s start with these lines:
“We’ve made it this far and all of a sudden now they want ownership?” Dillon asked, questioning the city’s motives.
Some affiliated with Peoria County are shaking their heads, noting the city has always indicated it wasn’t going to be “a roadblock” on any museum issue….
At-large City Councilman Ryan Spain acknowledged ongoing discussions but he said he didn’t know of any “strong push” from council members for the ownership or the co-ownership of the land.
“We still stand behind giving the land away,” Spain said. “That was our major contribution for the project.”
First of all, nowhere did anyone say that the City was going to just give the land to the County. The original redevelopment agreement between the City and the museum group agreed to lease the land to the museum for $1 per year for 99 years. So, essentially, they were donating the use of the land, but not ownership of it. Enter the County, thanks to the public facilities tax referendum. It would seem reasonable to assume that the City still planned to lease the land for the same amount, thus not being “a roadblock” in the way of museum progress. But now the the County has decided it wants/needs to own the land… well, that’s a different story. Perhaps the County was assuming facts not in evidence. Or maybe they just misunderstood. And as for Mr. Spain, I’d like him to show me the vote where the City Council said they were going to give away the land for nothing.
Moving on:
In fact, county officials argue it is necessary for them to have ownership of the property as part of a legal basis for the referendum allowing them to seek voter approval on a special sales tax through a new law.
This raises some rather disturbing questions. Is the County now saying that they have a legal requirement to own the land in order to use the sales tax revenue for the project? If so, the County has been keeping its proverbial cart in front of the horse for longer than I realized. The way the statement is worded, it’s not even clear to me that the referendum itself was legal, but I presume it must have been since the ballot wording was so broad (it was, after all, a “public facilities tax,” not a museum tax).
For those who may not remember, the “new law” includes this language (emphasis mine):
For purposes of this Section, “public facilities purposes” means the acquisition, development, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, financing, architectural planning, and installation of capital facilities consisting of buildings, structures, and durable equipment and for the acquisition and improvement of real property and interest in real property required, or expected to be required, in connection with the public facilities, for use by the county for the furnishing of governmental services to its citizens, including but not limited to museums and nursing homes.
If the County is indeed required to own the land in order to expend funds on the project, this raises other questions. For instance, where is the money coming from to pay for Mark Johnson, the county’s museum consultant? And where is the money to pay for the “experienced counsel at the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery“?
I’m still wondering how they were able to apply for federal money to build a parking deck on land they don’t own without first having an agreement with the owner of the land. There’s still no redevelopment agreement, yet the County is moving ahead as if there were.
Maybe the land conflict will be the thing that finally does in the museum. Nah. Like zombies in a bad horror film, this project comes back to life every time you think it might be dead.
Cart and horse. It will be interesting to see how this plays out since the value of the land has been frequently stated at $10 million. Can the City “give” property away or does it need to follow some sort of orderly method for liquidating property? If this property was for sale, I wonder what sort of interest land investors might have? My guess is that was the purpose behind the proposed lease – that is probably something that can be done quicker/easier.
– I posted this earlier………………
“Land dispute complicates Downtown museum project”
By JOHN SHARP (jsharp@pjstar.com) and KAREN McDONALD (kmcdonald@pjstar.com)
OF THE JOURNAL STAR
Posted Feb 26, 2010 @ 11:26 PM
PEORIA —
“Differing opinions between the city and county on the property rights of the new Downtown museum is the latest twist in the ongoing negotiations of a redevelopment agreement among four entities who are part of the project.”
– Well! Now is the time for the Peoria County Board to grow a pair! How many more problems must arise before the public screams ENOUGH?
We scream “enough” all the time, and then re-elect the same people…
Charlie,
Few GOOD people want to run. Look at all the publicity they receive, whether statements taken out of context or preceptions are true, seldom matters.
Can you see Henry Hollings, Michael Bryant or Glen Barton, as examples, running for public office?
Look at the grief, some earned, that some prominent people received after they were elected.
Why would they take the chance of leaving their comfortable executive world to enter the world of public service?
PUBLIC SERVICE… that is the point of politics. Most politicians don’t understand that simple concept. In fact, isn’t the point of living in society for everyone? I would say that most people in executive positions don’t understand that either…
Charlie, when have you run for office or what office do you hold?
11bravo,
Your question to Charlie is irrelevant. Before you start your “walk a mile in his shoes” shtick, these people run knowing full-well what they are in store for should they be elected to office.
I am sure most have them have admirable intentions – the desire to perform community service, etc, but I am also sure many have personal agendas to fulfill; climbing up the political ladder, business concerns, etc. Being ‘praised’ or raked over the coals is part of the job description.
Let’s see…I ran for Class President, ummm, I wrote myself in for several uncontested contests last election, uh… I have never had the financial resources, the interest nor the time to run for any political office. As someone once said, “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president,”
My calling is in a smaller realm, a more personal world of interpersonal relationships.
However, I’ll take any appointment, any day. I would like $50k, three months vacation and 2 or 3 “consultants” to do my bidding. As Bruce Willis said: I am the fly in the ointment, the monkey in the wrench…
Just curious. Does anyone know the benefits for being on the city council or county board in Peoria? Pay, insurance, etc? How about D150 also.
NV, your point is actually the irrelevant one because what Charlie was doing was criticizing a group that as of yet have not chosen to run for office. You are trying to make a point about the people who are already holding office.
11Bravo,
Oh yeah?
“PUBLIC SERVICE… that is the point of politics. Most politicians don’t understand that simple concept.” – Sounds like he is talking about politicians in the present sense, but I do see what you were talking about.